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.
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 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Granum (US Patent 4,613,086) in view of Kanellos (U.S. Publication 2023/0074503).
Regarding claim 1, Granum teaches a method for operating a stand mixer (shown in figures 8-10), the stand mixer comprising a housing (figure 10 outer wall proximate items 282, 128, item 134 that house the drive, transmission and support the mixing bowl 36’), a motor disposed in the housing (variable speed motor item 154), a power takeoff extending from the housing (power take off 132), a power takeoff attachment mechanically coupled to the power takeoff and a controller (control means 290, item 272 is considered reading on a power takeoff attachment). Regarding claim 1, Granum is silent to the controller configure to measure torque of the motor, the method comprising: performing a food processing operation of food contents within the power take off attachment, wherein the food processing operation comprises: operating, by the controller, the motor of the stand mixer at a first speed; measuring, by the controller, a torque value of the motor of the stand mixer; comparing the measured torque value of the motor to a predetermined torque threshold value; and operating, by the controller, the motor of the stand mixer at a second speed in response to the comparison of the measured torque value to the predetermined torque threshold value, the second speed of the motor less than the first speed of the motor. Regarding claim 1, Kanellos teaches the controller (paragraph 92 teaches a controller that modifies mixing speed based on changes to viscosity) configure to measure torque of the motor (paragraph 95 teaches measuring the torque output of the motor to identify the target viscosity), the method comprising: performing a food processing operation of food contents within the power take off attachment (item 150, 154 are used to mix food, paragraph 2 teaches food processing), wherein the food processing operation comprises: operating, by the controller, the motor of the stand mixer at a first speed (paragraph 95 teaches changing mixing speed which is inherently considered requiring operating the motor at a first speed); measuring, by the controller, a torque value of the motor of the stand mixer (paragraph 95 teaches measuring torque output of the motor); comparing the measured torque value of the motor to a predetermined torque threshold value (paragraph 95 teaches measuring the torque value to identify a target viscosity which would inherently have a target torque); and operating, by the controller, the motor of the stand mixer at a second speed in response to the comparison of the measured torque value to the predetermined torque threshold value, the second speed of the motor less than the first speed of the motor (paragraph 95 teaches adjusting the mixing speed based on the target viscosity which would inherently require a target torque, paragraph 115 teaches a second speed). Regarding claim 1, 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 mixer of Granum with the controller configuration of Kanellos in order to have a more accurate mixing operation. Regarding claim 1, absent any unexpected results, 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 second mix speed in order to obtain the desired mixing food product since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Both references are considered in the same field of endeavor since they are concerned with food processing.
Granum is silent to the language of claim 3. Regarding claim 3, Kanellos teaches measuring, by the controller, the torque value of the motor of the stand mixer while operating the motor at the second speed (paragraph 95 teaches changing the mixing speeds based on the target viscosity and measuring the torque of the motor which would inherently require measuring the torque of the motor as the speed changes); comparing the measured torque value of the motor to a processing torque threshold value (paragraph 95 teaches measuring the torque output of the motor to identify the target viscosity which would inherently require comparing the measured torque value to the inherently target threshold associated with the target viscosity); and operating, by the controller, the motor of the stand mixer at the first speed in response to the comparison of the measured torque value to the processing torque threshold value (paragraph 92 teaches a controller that modifies mixing speed based on changes to viscosity). Regarding claim 3, 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 mixer of Granum with the controller configuration of Kanellos in order to have a more accurate mixing operation.
Regarding claim 4, Granum teaches wherein the food processing operation comprises one or more of grinding, shredding, and extruding food contents (see abstract which teaches a grinding head which is considered grinding the grain).
Granum is silent to the language of claim 5. Regarding claim 5, Kanellos teaches wherein the first speed is determined based on a user input or a predefined setting of the food processing operation (paragraph 100 teaches operating the mixing system by a user using the user controls including a dynamic mixing protocol). Regarding claim 5, 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 mixer of Granum with the controller configuration of Kanellos in order to have a more accurate mixing operation.
Regarding claim 6, Granum teaches a stand mixer (see figures 8-10). Granum is silent to the motor operation of claim 6. Regarding claim 6, Kanellos teaches wherein operating the motor of the mixer at the second speed comprises one of pausing the motor and stopping the motor (paragraph 73 teaches pulsing the motor on and off which would inherently have a second speed in which the motor is stopped). 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 mixer of Granum with the controller configuration of Kanellos in order to have a more accurate mixing operation.
Regarding claim 7, Granum teaches wherein the food processing operation comprises one of a single batch mode and a continuous batch mode (the mixing operation of the stand mixer in figure 10 is considered a single batch mode).
Granum is silent to the language of claim 8. Regarding claim 8, 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 mixer of Granum with the controller configuration of Kanellos in order to have a more accurate mixing operation. Regarding claim 8, absent any unexpected results, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to turn off the motor once the desired product is achieved since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 9, Granum teaches further comprising providing, by the controller, a user notification in response to the comparison of the measured torque value (paragraph 40 teaches a user interface including led indicators to indicate particular component of the mixing system, paragraph 95 teaches a target viscosity of the beverage which inherently has a target torque output of the motor).
Regarding claim 10, Granum teaches wherein the power take off attachment comprises a hopper (item 42), wherein performing the food processing operation of food contents within the power take off attachment comprises processing food contents within the hopper (see abstract which teaches grinding receiving grain in the hopper).
Regarding claim 11, Granum teaches a stand mixer (shown in figures 8-10), the stand mixer comprising a housing (figure 10 outer wall proximate items 282, 128, item 134 that house the drive, transmission and support the mixing bowl 36’), a motor disposed in the housing (variable speed motor item 154), a power takeoff extending from the housing (power take off 132), a power takeoff attachment mechanically coupled to the power takeoff and a controller disposed in the housing (control means 290, item 272 is considered reading on a power takeoff attachment). Regarding claim 11, Granum is silent to the controller configured to measure torque of the motor and to perform a food processing operation of food contents within the power take off attachment, wherein the food processing operation comprises: operating, by the controller, the motor of the stand mixer at a first speed; measuring, by the controller, a torque value of the motor of the stand mixer; comparing the measured torque value of the motor to a predetermined torque threshold value; and operating, by the controller, the motor of the stand mixer at a second speed in response to the comparison of the measured torque value to the predetermined torque threshold value, the second speed of the motor less than the first speed of the motor. Regarding claim 11, Kanellos teaches performing a food processing operation of the food contents within the power takeoff attachment (see shaft and mixer 150, 154) operating, by the controller, the motor of the stand mixer at a first speed (paragraph 95 teaches changing mixing speeds which would inherently require a first speed); measuring, by the controller, a torque value of the motor of the stand mixer (paragraph 95 teaches measuring torque of the motor); comparing the measured torque value of the motor to a predetermined torque threshold value (paragraph 95 teaches identifying a targeted viscosity, which is inherently associated with a torque value); and operating, by the controller, the motor of the stand mixer at a second speed in response to the comparison of the measured torque value to the predetermined torque threshold value (paragraph 95 teaches changing the mixing speed. Regarding claim 11, 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 mixer of Granum with the controller configuration of Kanellos in order to have a more accurate mixing operation. Regarding claim 11, absent any unexpected results, 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 second mix speed in order to obtain the desired mixing food product since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Both references are considered in the same field of endeavor since they are concerned with food processing.
Granum is silent to the language of claim 13. Regarding claim 13, Kanellos teaches wherein the controller is further configured to: measure the torque value of the motor of the stand mixer while operating the motor at the second speed (paragraph 95 teaches changing the mixing speeds based on the target viscosity and measuring the torque of the motor which would inherently require measuring the torque of the motor as the speed changes); compare the measured torque value of the motor to a processing torque threshold value (paragraph 95 teaches measuring the torque output of the motor to identify the target viscosity which would inherently require comparing the measured torque value to the inherently target threshold associated with the target viscosity); and operate the motor of the stand mixer at the first speed in response to the comparison of the measured torque value to the processing torque threshold value (paragraph 92 teaches a controller that modifies mixing speed based on changes to viscosity). Regarding claim 13, 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 mixer of Granum with the controller configuration of Kanellos in order to have a more accurate mixing operation.
Regarding claim 14, Granum teaches wherein the food processing operation comprises one or more of grinding, shredding, and extruding food contents (see abstract which teaches a grinding head which is considered grinding the grain).
Granum is silent to the language of claim 15. Regarding claim 15, Kanellos teaches wherein the first speed is determined based on a user input or a predefined setting of the food processing operation (paragraph 100 teaches operating the mixing system by a user using the user controls including a dynamic mixing protocol). Regarding claim 15, 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 mixer of Granum with the controller configuration of Kanellos in order to have a more accurate mixing operation.
Regarding claim 16, Granum teaches a stand mixer (see figures 8-10). Granum is silent to the motor operation of claim 16. Regarding claim 16, Kanellos teaches wherein operating the motor of the mixer at the second speed comprises one of pausing the motor and stopping the motor (paragraph 73 teaches pulsing the motor on and off which would inherently have a second speed in which the motor is stopped). Regarding claim 16, 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 mixer of Granum with the controller configuration of Kanellos in order to have a more accurate mixing operation.
Regarding claim 17, Granum teaches wherein the food processing operation comprises one of a single batch mode and a continuous batch mode (the mixing operation of the stand mixer in figure 10 is considered a single batch mode).
Granum is silent to the language of claim 18. Regarding claim 18, 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 mixer of Granum with the controller configuration of Kanellos in order to have a more accurate mixing operation. Regarding claim 18, absent any unexpected results, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to turn off the motor once the desired product is achieved since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 19, Granum teaches further the controller is further configured to provide a user notification in response to the comparison of the measured torque value (paragraph 40 teaches a user interface including led indicators to indicate particular component of the mixing system, paragraph 95 teaches a target viscosity of the beverage which inherently has a target torque output of the motor).
Regarding claim 20, Granum teaches wherein the power take off attachment comprises a hopper (item 42), wherein performing the food processing operation of food contents within the power take off attachment comprises processing food contents within the hopper (see abstract which teaches grinding receiving grain in the hopper).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2 and 12 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 2 is objected to but would be allowable if written in independent form. The prior art does not teach or fairly suggest the method for operating a stand mixer with the controller configuration including the predetermined threshold value comprises a baseline torque of operating the motor without processing food contents.
Claim 12 is objected to but would be allowable if written in independent form. The prior art does not teach or fairly suggest the stand mixer with the controller configuration including the predetermined threshold value comprises a baseline torque of operating the motor without processing food contents.
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