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 § 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, 2 and 4-9 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:
In claim 1, in the last line, it is unclear if “the toothed wheel” refers to the “transmission toothed wheel” or to one or more of the driven toothed wheels. Dependent claims 2 and 4-9 fall with the independent claim concerning this issue; however, note that claim 4 also ambiguously recites “the toothed wheel”.
In claim 7, there is lack of antecedent basis for “the second conical wheel”. Claim 8 falls with claim 7 concerning this issue.
In claim 8, there is lack of antecedent basis for “the second beveled wheel”
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, 2, 4 and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schulz (US 2006/0002229) in view of Ok (US 2013/0126436):
Regarding claim 1, Schulz (US 2006/0002229) discloses a device for fluid products contained in containers comprising a cup (12) configured to house the containers of liquids to be mixed inside the mixing device and operated by means of a train of gears (20,30,32) by motor means (18) so as to rotate simultaneously with a revolution motion around a vertical axis (16) and with a rotation motion around an axis (14) of the cup which is inclined by an angle with respect to the vertical axis, the mixing device further comprising a counterweight (24) fixed to a support (see Fig. 2) of the cup on the opposite side with respect to the vertical axis (see Fig. 2) wherein the gear train comprises a transmission toothed wheel (20) which transmits motion to a driven toothed wheel (32) fixed to the support of the cup so as to make the cup rotate with a revolving motion around the vertical axis of rotation of the toothed wheel. However, Shultz does not disclose duplicating the cup and does not disclose a gear driving plural gears. Ok teach a toothed wheel (210 or 230) driving plural gears (210) to rotate plural cups (200, 300). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have implemented the teaching of Ok for the benefit of mixing plural containers simultaneously.
Regarding claim 2, Ok further teaches “comprising” (opening language transitional phrase) four cups (see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 4, Schulz discloses first and second bevel wheels (30, 32).
Regarding claim 7, Ok teaches adapter (300) at the bottom of the cup.
Regarding claim 8, in the adapter (300) taught by Ok there is a step (see Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 9, the angle of inclination from vertical of axis 14 in Schulz is about approximately 30 degrees (see Figs. 1 and 2).
Claims 1, 2, 4 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schulz (US 2006/0002229) in view of Nickerson (US 998,257):
Regarding claim 1, Schulz (US 2006/0002229) discloses a device for fluid products contained in containers comprising a cup (12) configured to house the containers of liquids to be mixed inside the mixing device and operated by means of a train of gears (20,30,32) by motor means (18) so as to rotate simultaneously with a revolution motion around a vertical axis (16) and with a rotation motion around an axis (14) of the cup which is inclined by an angle with respect to the vertical axis, the mixing device further comprising a counterweight (24) fixed to a support (see Fig. 2) of the cup on the opposite side with respect to the vertical axis (see Fig. 2) wherein the gear train comprises a transmission toothed wheel (20) which transmits motion to a driven toothed wheel (32) fixed to the support of the cup so as to make the cup rotate with a revolving motion around the vertical axis of rotation of the toothed wheel. However, Shultz does not disclose duplicating the cup and does not disclose a gear driving plural gears. Nickerson teach a toothed wheel (53) driving plural gears (20) to rotate plural cups (A). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have implemented the teaching of Ok for the benefit of mixing plural containers simultaneously.
Regarding claim 2, Nickerson further teaches “comprising” (opening language transitional phrase) four cups (see Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 4, Schulz discloses first and second bevel wheels (30, 32). Nickerson also teaches first and second beveled wheels (20,21).
Regarding claim 9, the angle of inclination from vertical of axis 14 in Schulz is about approximately 30 degrees (see Figs. 1 and 2).
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schulz (US 2006/0002229) in view of Ok (US 2013/0126436) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gantner (US 5,551,779):
Regarding claim 5, while Schulz further teaches that the counterweight is seated on the support (see Fig. 2), the counterweight is not “inserted in a seat” of the support. Gantner teaches inserting a counterweight (3a) in a seat (3) of a support in a highly analogous device. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have inserted the counterweight in a seat of a support as taught by Gantner, so as to allow the counterweight to shift as rotation rate changes, there by matching liquid in the cup (see col. 4, lines 25-46).
Regarding claim 6, Schulz does not teach angling the counterweight at the same angle as the cup. Gantner teaches angling counterweight (3a) and seat (3) at the same angle as the cup (see col. 3, lines 44-49). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have made the angle of the counterweight equal that of the cup as taught by Gantner, so as to allow the counterweight to shift as rotation rate changes, there by matching liquid in the cup (see col. 4, lines 25-46).
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schulz (US 2006/0002229) in view of Nickerson (US 998,257) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gantner (US 5,551,779):
Regarding claim 5, while Schulz further teaches that the counterweight is seated on the support (see Fig. 2), the counterweight is not “inserted in a seat” of the support. Gantner teaches inserting a counterweight (3a) in a seat (3) of a support in a highly analogous device. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have inserted the counterweight in a seat of a support as taught by Gantner, so as to allow the counterweight to shift as rotation rate changes, there by matching liquid in the cup (see col. 4, lines 25-46).
Regarding claim 6, Schulz does not teach angling the counterweight at the same angle as the cup. Gantner teaches angling counterweight (3a) and seat (3) at the same angle as the cup (see col. 3, lines 44-49). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have made the angle of the counterweight equal that of the cup as taught by Gantner, so as to allow the counterweight to shift as rotation rate changes, there by matching liquid in the cup (see col. 4, lines 25-46).
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