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
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: “to determine to phenol content” is grammatically incorrect. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities: “ppm reader determine” is grammatically incorrect. Appropriate correction is required.
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 – 4 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jung (KR 101167856).
Regarding claim 1, the Jung reference discloses a barrel stirring device (130), the device comprising:
a body (160) configured to cover at least a portion of a head of a barrel (110), the body having a first side (top) and a second side (bottom) opposite and spaced apart from the first side (see profile of body 160 in Figure 2); a motor (150) coupled to the body; and
a shaft (121) having a longitudinal axis, a first portion (125; upper part of shaft), and a second portion (127; lower part of shaft) spaced apart along the longitudinal axis from the first portion, wherein the second portion of the shaft is couplable to a stirrer attachment (122), wherein the first portion is operatively coupled to the motor such that activation of the motor causes rotation of the shaft about the longitudinal axis (main gear 125 is operatively coupled to motor 150).
Regarding claim 2, wherein the stirrer attachment (122) is permanently attached to the second portion (127) of the shaft (121).
Regarding claim 3, further comprising the stirrer attachment (122), wherein the stirrer attachment includes one or more blades (128) extending perpendicularly relative to the longitudinal axis (see Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 4, wherein the one or more blades (128) are pivotable relative to the longitudinal axis. See Figures 4A and 4B.
Regarding claim 6, wherein the first side of the body defines a central opening
extending to the second side of the body, wherein the motor (150) is coupled to the first side of the body, wherein the shaft (121) extends through the central opening such that the second portion of the shaft is closer to the second side of the body than it is to the first side of the body. See Annotated Figure below.
Claim(s) 1-3, 7 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Roleder (9523068).
Regarding claim 1, the Roleder reference discloses a barrel stirring device (see Fig. 1B), the device comprising: a body (18) configured to cover at least a portion of a head of a barrel (12), the body having a first side (top) and a second side (bottom) opposite and spaced apart from the first side (see profile of body 160 in Figure 2); a motor (38; col. 8, lines 58-65) coupled to the body; and a shaft (34) having a longitudinal axis, a first portion (upper part of shaft), and a second portion (lower part of shaft) spaced apart along the longitudinal axis from the first portion, wherein the second portion of the shaft is couplable to a stirrer attachment (30, 32), wherein the first portion is operatively coupled to the motor such that activation of the motor causes rotation of the shaft about the longitudinal axis (inherent to optional motor).
Regarding claim 2, wherein the stirrer attachment (30, 32) is permanently attached to the second portion of the shaft (34). See Figure 1B.
Regarding claim 3, further comprising the stirrer attachment (30, 32), wherein the stirrer attachment includes one or more blades (32B) extending perpendicularly relative to the longitudinal axis (see Fig. 2A).
Regarding claims 7 and 8, wherein the first side of the body defines one or more fastener openings (defined on upper mount 20B; see Fig. 1B) extending to the second side of the body.
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.
Claim(s) 7 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung.
Regarding claim 7, the Jung reference discloses the invention (discussed supra) including a screw thread attachment to attach the stirring device (130) to the barrel head but doesn’t disclose wherein the first side of the body defines one or more fastener openings extending to the second side of the body. The Examiner takes Official Notice that the use of “fastening openings” and “fasteners” to attach components together is well known in the art and would be obvious to use without unexpected results.
Regarding claim 19, the Jung reference doesn’t disclose two or more of the devices (defined supra). However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide two or more of the Jung devices, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roleder in view of Koppelman (4073955; cited prior art).
Regarding claim 5, the Roleder reference discloses the invention (discussed supra) including flavored wood (16) but doesn’t disclose the wood being charred. However, the Koppelman reference discloses another liquor aging barrel (Fig. 1) having hollow wooden staves that are charred to add flavor to the liquor (see col. 5, lines 2-11). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to modify the flavored wood of Roleder as, for example, taught by the Koppelman reference to add charred wood flavor to the alcohol.
Claim(s) 9 - 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung and Roleder in view of Johnson et al. (2018/0093236; cited prior art).
Regarding claim 9, the Jung and Roleder references disclose the invention (discussed supra), but don’t disclose an O-ring coupled to the second side of the body. However, the Johnson et al. reference discloses another similar mixing device having a shaft (64), mixer (67) and O-ring (71) to provide an airtight fit. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to provide an O-ring on the Jung and Roleder devices as, for example, taught by the Johnson et al. device to provide a seal between the mixing device and container or barrel.
Regarding claim 10, the O-ring defining a plurality of teeth extending from a surface opposite the second side of the body is a matter of design choice and would be obvious to try without unexpected results.
Regarding claim 11, wherein the shaft extends through an O-ring opening. This would be inherent to both modified Jung and Roleder devices.
Claim(s) 13 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung and Roleder in view of Da Silva Borges et al. (WO 2021/229277; cited prior art).
Regarding claim 13, Jung and Roleder references disclose the device as claimed but don’t disclose a probe extending away from the second side of the body. However, the Da Silva Borges et al. reference discloses a stirring device (Fig. 1; page 19, para 3), comprising: a probe extending away from the second side of the body (5, 11, 12: Figs. 1-2; P9 page 19 para’s 3-4). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to modify the Jung and Roleder devices to have a probe as, for example taught by the Da Silva Borges et al. reference in order to check status of a desired fluid being stirred remotely.
Regarding claim 17, the Da Silva Borges et al. reference further teaches wherein the probe comprises a pH reader (12; Figs. 1-2: page 16, para 1).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung and Roleder, as applied to claim 13, and further in view of Johnson et al. (2018/0093236; cited prior art).
Regarding claim 14, modified Jung and Roleder references disclose the invention (discussed supra), but don’t disclose an O-ring coupled to the second side of the body. However, the Johnson et al. reference discloses another similar mixing device having a shaft (64), mixer (67) and O-ring (71) to provide an airtight fit. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to further provide an O-ring on the Jung and Roleder devices as, for example, taught by the Johnson et al. device to provide a seal between the probe and container or barrel opening.
Claim(s) 15 and 20-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung and Roleder in view of Slone et al. (11378569; cited prior art).
Regarding claim 15, modified Jung and Roleder references disclose the device as claimed but don’t disclose wherein the probe comprises a ppm reader to determine the phenol content. However, Slone et al. teach a device (Fig. 1A-3A; col 3 in 48-58), comprising: a ppm reader to determine to phenol content (335; Fig. 1A-3A; col 7 in 4-19). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to modify the Jung and Roleder devices to further have a ppm reader as, for example, taught by the Slone et al. reference, in order to effectively and remotely monitor phenol content of 2 stored fluid.
Regarding claim 20, the Slone et al. reference further teaches a system (Fig. 1A-3A; col 3 Iines 48-58), comprising: the two or more devices (instances of 100; Fig. 1A-2; col. 3 lines 48-58) are in electronic communication with each other (networked electronic communication; Fig. 1A-2; col. 3 In 59 to col. 4 In 6). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to further modify the Jung and Roleder devices to have two or more devices in electronic communication, in order to effectively monitor multiple barrels remotely.
Regarding claim 21, Slone et al. further teach a Bluetooth transmitter and receiver, wherein the two or more devices are in electronic communication with each other via Bluetooth (Bluetooth communication; Fig. 2: col 4, lines 8 -14).
Regarding claim 22, Slone et al. further teach a controller for controlling the two or more devices (230, 240; Fig. 1A-2; col 4 lines 7-30).
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung and Roleder in view of Zhang et al. (CN 1160442343; cited prior art).
Regarding claim 16, modified Jung and Roleder references disclose the device as claimed but don’t disclose wherein the probe comprises a ppm reader to determine the ester content. However, Zhang et al. teach a device (Fig. 1-2; para [0050]), comprising: a ppm reader to determine an ester content (ester sensor; Fig. 1-2; [0038]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to have employed the reader of Zhang et al. upon the devices of Jung and Roleder, in order to effectively monitor ester content of a stored fluid.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung and Roleder in view of Kim (2005/0072310; cited prior art).
Regarding claim 18, modified Jung and Roleder references disclose the device as claimed but don’t disclose a timer. However, Kim discloses a device (Fig. 1; para [0030 - 0031]) comprising: a timer for controlling time of the overall process (113a; Fig. 5; para [0033]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to have employed the timer of Kim upon the devices of Jung and Roleder, in order to record how long a fluid has been stirred by the stirrer.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 12 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIMOTHY LEWIS MAUST whose telephone number is (571)272-4891. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 7am - 5pm.
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, Craig Schneider can be reached at 571-272-3607. 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.
/TIMOTHY L MAUST/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753
