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 1, 3, and 4 are objected to. The amendments to claims 1, 3, and 4 include strikethroughs of the commas and semicolons making the claim less clear. It is suggested that the commas and semicolons be added to enhance the clarity of the claim.
Claim Interpretation
Regarding claim 9, the articulated robot, table, and housing are considered positively claimed and required by the claim.
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, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 (b) for being indefinite since the claims strikethrough the period and therefore there is no definite ending to the claims. Correction/clarification is required.
Claims 2-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 (b) for being indefinite since the claims do not overcome the indefinite rejection of the claims from which they depend.
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.
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.
Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huckby (U.S. Publication 2003/0107949).
Regarding claim 1, Huckby teaches a stirrer (Figure 1 and 2) for an individual-specific cosmetic manufacturing selling machine for stirring liquid cosmetic raw materials injected into a container (the materials being worked upon, the container, and selling the materials are considered intended use of the stirrer, the stirrer shown in figures 1 and 2 are considered capable of mixing cosmetic products that are capable of being sold to a customer) comprising: a ring-shaped outer belt with interior ribs (paragraph 24 item 36 which is taught having interior ribs); a motor (item 28) configured to rotate the outer gear (item 28 is used to rotate item 36 via items 30 and 32) an inner gear assembled on an inner circumferential surface of the outer gear to make a planetary motion (item 34 is considered reading on an inner gear and is on an inner circumferential surface of item 36 to help make planetary motion via the drive components downstream); and a container fixing member provided above the inner gear and configured to fix the container (items 54, 58, 72 are considered reading on container fixing members which are above item 34, items 54 and 58 are used to fix item 140, the container is considered intended use). Regarding claim 1, Huckby is silent to outer gear and instead teaches an outer toothed belt (item 36). Regarding claim 1, absent any unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try substituting the belt with interior ribs with a gear with interior ribs in order to increase the rigidity of the stirring apparatus.
Regarding claim 2, Huckby teaches wherein the container fixing member has a circular groove obliquely formed at a predetermined angle toward the outside so the container can be obliquely seated in the circular groove (items 62 are angled grooves in item 58 and are used alongside bolts taught in paragraph 39 to attach the container to 62).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huckby (U.S. Publication 2003/0107949) in view of Morbeck (U.S. Patent 4,789,245).
Huckby is silent to the language of claim 6. Regarding claim 6, Morbeck teaches wherein a clamping lever for fixing the container is provided on one side of an outer circumferential surface of the container fixing member (figure 5 clamping fingers items 80 which are on one side of the outer circumference of item 28). Regarding claim 6, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the container fixer of Huckby with the clamping arm configuration of Morbeck in order to better secure the container during a mixing operation.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huckby (U.S. Publication 2003/0107949) in view of Luoma (U.S. Publication 2014/0269158).
Regarding claim 9, Huckby teaches a table (item 18 is considered reading on a table) and a housing (cabinet item 12). Regarding claim 9, Huckby is silent to the articulated robot. Regarding claim 9, Luoma teaches wherein a container is removed from a container holder by an articulated robot (paragraph 45 teaches using a robot to transport the cartridge 100) provided on a table (paragraph 34 platform 104). Regarding claim 9, 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 mixer of Huckby with the robotic arm configuration of Luoma in order to allow for easier use of the mixer.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 4, 5, 7, and 8 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action (and the above claim objections) and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 3, the prior art does not teach or fairly suggest a stirrer with the combination of the ring-shaped outer gear, motor configured to rotate the outer gear, inner gear assembled on an inner circumferential surface of the outer gear, and the main shaft connected to a rotation shaft of the motor through a belt.
Regarding claim 7, the prior art does not teach or fairly suggest a stirrer with the combination of the ring-shaped outer gear, motor configured to rotate the outer gear, inner gear assembled on an inner circumferential surface of the outer gear, a clamp cylinder and a clamp spring configured to apply an elastic force to the clamping lever.
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
Prosecution Insights