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 .
The claims received 3/10/2026 are entered. Claims 2-5 are cancelled and claim 16 is new.
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.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
The following limitation(s) is/are 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 means or a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the means or generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
“slushy unit” includes the generic/nonce term “unit” coupled with the function of “make a slushy product”. A return to the specification provides a stirring element which includes a shaft and blade. Therefor the limitation is interpreted as the same or equivalents thereof.
“ice cream unit” includes the generic/nonce term “unit” coupled with the function of “to make an ice cream product”. A return to the specification provides a stirring element which includes a shaft and blade. Therefor the limitation is interpreted as the same or equivalents thereof.
“stirring element(s)” which appear in later claims are interpreted to include the shaft and blade.
“cooling system” includes the generic/nonce term “system” coupled with the function of “to cool the slushy unit and the ice cream unit”. A return to the specification provides a chiller or “The cooling system 140 may be any suitable refrigeration equipment capable of reducing the compartment to the required temperature (typically -3 to -6 degrees centigrade), but is typically a compressor-type cooler with a compressor, evaporator, condenser, etc.” [0027]. Therefor the limitation is interpreted as the same or equivalents thereof.
“dispensing unit” includes the generic/nonce term “unit” coupled with the function of “selectively dispensing slushy product and ice cream”. A return to the specification provides a dispensing port. Therefor the limitation is interpreted as the same or equivalents thereof.
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(s) 1, 6-8, 10-11, and 13-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Sexton et al (US 4,869,072), in view of Cocchi et al (US 10,674,744), in view of Lee et al (US 9,981,746), in view of Cocchi et al (US 11,406,119, Hereinafter Cocchi’119), and in further view of Calim (US 3,874,189).
Regarding claim 1, Sexton discloses a vehicle galley insert cold treat making system (MPEP 2111.02 “If the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999). See also Rowe v. Dror, 112 F.3d 473, 478, 42 USPQ2d 1550, 1553 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ("where a patentee defines a structurally complete invention in the claim body and uses the preamble only to state a purpose or intended use for the invention, the preamble is not a claim limitation");”comprising:
a slushy unit configured to make a slushy product (as interpreted under 112.6 above the slushy unit includes a shaft and blade; Sexton includes cooling chamber 1 having a shaft and paddle which is an equivalent);
an ice cream unit configured to make an ice cream product (as interpreted under 112.6 above the ice cream unit includes a shaft and blade; Sexton includes cooling chamber 2 having a shaft and paddle which is an equivalent);
a cooling system configured to cool the slushy unit and the ice cream unit (as interpreted under 112.6 above the cooling system includes chiller or refrigerator; Sexton includes a refrigerator 1:60 to 2:18); and
dispensing unit, wherein the slushy unit and the ice cream unit are connected to the dispensing unit for selectively dispensing slushy product and ice cream (as interpreted under 112.6 above the dispensing unit includes a dispensing port; Sexton includes an outlet port for each of the cooling chambers as shown in figures 1, 2, and 5 the ports collectively are the “dispensing unit”),
wherein the vehicle galley insert cold treat making system is configured to be installed in an aircraft galley compartment (the system of Sexton is capable of and thus configured to be installed in an aircraft galley compartment),
wherein the vehicle galley insert cold treat making system further comprises a first refilling port which connects to the slushy unit and a second refilling port which connects to the ice cream unit (figure 5 shows refilling ports for syrup and water; 4:33-37 discloses the same major components are provided to chamber 2),
As stated above the feature of “vehicle galley” is merely intended use and thus not a claim limitation. Nonetheless Lee is provided which discloses a vehicle galley dispenser.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have employed the cold treat making system of Sexton to a vehicle in order to supply products to users. Moreover it has been held that where there exists an art recognized suitability for an intended purpose that it is obvious to apply the known means to the known purpose. MPEP 2144.07. In this instance Sexton provides for a counter top cold treat making system. Lee evidences cold treat making in an aircraft. Merely applying the known system of Sexton to the known purpose of vehicle treat systems is prima facie obvious yielding predictable results.
Further regarding slushy and ice cream. As noted above the respective units are defined by their structure, which Sexton provides. Sexton is directed to “partially frozen beverage” making/dispensing. Cocchi discloses a similar machine and evidences its use for making and dispensing slushes and ice cream (1:11-13). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have dispensed ice cream and slush in order to provide variety of product to a user. Moreover it has been held that where there exists an art recognized suitability for an intended purpose that it is obvious to apply the known means to the known purpose. MPEP 2144.07. In this instance Sexton provides for a cold treat making system. Cocchi evidences cold treat making includes slush and ice cream. Merely applying the known system of Sexton to the known purpose of ice cream and slush treat systems is prima facie obvious yielding predictable results.
Sexton, alone or as modified, discloses the vehicle galley insert cold treat making system according to claim 3, but lacks the location for the filling ports. Cocchi discloses a cold treat making system wherein refilling ports (2) are accessible from the front of a galley compartment, and connect to the top of the slushy/ice cream unit (3); wherein the refilling port further comprises a retractable hose (14; 3:44-46) configured to be stored inside the system and further configured to connect each of the refilling ports to an external source of liquid; wherein the system comprises a removable cover (cover is removed from 10 when in the extended condition) for protecting the plurality of refill ports when not in use. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided Sexton with the fill port location and retractable hose of Cocchi’119 in order to make small batch flavors of product.
Sexton lacks directly inserting a tube into a source of liquid. Calim discloses a beverage dispensing machine which includes a inserting a hose (156) into an external source of liquid (160). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided Sexton with inserting a tube into the liquid source in order to utilize sources that are not easily poured, e.g. bags and large containers.
Regarding claim 2, Sexton as modified further discloses the vehicle galley insert cold treat making system is configured to be installed in an aircraft galley compartment (as modified in view of Lee above the system is installed in an aircraft galley).
Regarding claim 3, Sexton discloses the system further comprises a first refilling port which connects to the slushy unit and a second refilling port which connects to the ice cream unit (figure 5 shows refilling ports for syrup and water; 4:33-37 discloses the same major components are provided to chamber 2).
Regarding claim 6, Sexton discloses a first refilling pump (P1) configured to pump liquid from the first refilling port to the slushy unit and a second refilling pump (P2) configured to pump liquid from the second refilling port to the ice cream unit.
Regarding claims 7 and 16, Sexton as modified discloses the system includes a removeable cover for protecting the plurality of refill ports when not in use (Cocchi discloses covers 18 for refill ports to the respective units; moreover Cocchi’119 discloses covers such as 2C shown in figure 6).
Regarding claim 8, Sexton discloses the slushy unit comprises a first stirring element (chamber 1 includes shafter 84 and paddles) and the ice cream unit (chamber 2 includes shafter 86 and paddles) comprises a second stirring element; and wherein the first and second stirring elements are driven by a common motor (M).
Regarding claim 10, Sexton and Cocchi disclose the first and second stirring elements are located horizontally in the bottom of their respective unit (as modified in view of Cocchi the stirring elements are located in the respective chambers are at a bottom thereof).
Regarding claim 11, Sexton and Cocchi disclose 1 the dispensing unit is connected to the bottom of the slushy unit and to the bottom of the ice cream unit (as modified in view of Cocchi the dispensing outlets are located in the respective chambers are at a bottom thereof).
Regarding claim 13, Sexton discloses dispensing unit comprises a first dispensing port for dispensing ice cream product and a second dispensing port for dispensing slushy product (each respective unit has a dispensing port as shown in at least figure 2).
Regarding claim 14, Sexton discloses the vehicle galley insert cold treat making system according to claim 1, but lacks an additional chiller space or cup/cone dispenser. The examiner takes official notice that cold storage as well as cup/cone dispensers are old and well known. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided Sexton with additional storage space in order to store ingredients and a cup/cone dispenser in order to provide a filling target and consuming vessel to a user.
Regarding claim 15, Sexton discloses the vehicle galley insert cold treat making system according to claim 1, including the adding of syrups. Sexton is silent concerning a flavor tank. The examiner takes official notice that it is known to store flavoring syrups within tanks. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided the syrups of Sexton within tanks in order to contain the syrups.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sexton et al (US 4,869,072), in view of Cocchi et al (US 10,674,744), in view of Lee et al (US 9,981,746), in view of Cocchi et al (US 11,406,119, Hereinafter Cocchi’119), in further view of Calim (US 3,874,189) and in further view of Frank (US 5,73,097).
Regarding claim 9, Sexton discloses the slushy unit comprises a first stirring element (chamber 1 includes shafter 84 and paddles) and the ice cream unit (chamber 2 includes shafter 86 and paddles) comprises a second stirring element. But lacks two motors therefor. Frank discloses a system for making cold treats including first and second stirring elements driving by first and second motors (46, 48), respectively. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided Sexton with the dual motors of Frank in order to independently control the chambers.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sexton et al (US 4,869,072), in view of Cocchi et al (US 10,674,744), in view of Lee et al (US 9,981,746), in view of Cocchi et al (US 11,406,119, Hereinafter Cocchi’119), in further view of Calim (US 3,874,189), and in further view of Cocchi et al (US 10,570,897). Hereinafter Cocchi’897.
Regarding claim 12, Sexton, alone or as modified, discloses the vehicle galley insert cold treat making system according to claim 1, but lacks dispensing pumps. Cocchi’897 discloses the dispensing unit further comprises a first dispensing pump (1) selectively operable to pump ice cream product from the ice cream unit. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided Sexton with a dispensing pump at each of the units in order to meter product from the respect units.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/10/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive or rendered moot by the new grounds of rejection.
In regard to inserting the a hose into a source of liquid, Calim is now provided.
Reich et al (US 9,326,531) and Keyes (US 3,989,492) are provided and teach similar inserting a pickup hose into a source of liquid for a beverage dispenser.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Stephens (US 2021/0253254) airline trolley and dispenser.
Cocchi et al (US 2013/0269381) slushy and ice cream maker.
Anderson et al (US 9,127,881) blended ice beverage dispenser.
Johnson (US 5,979,166) beverage dispenser.
Van Der Veer (US 4,653,281) frozen beverage dispenser.
Savage (US 4,420,948) ice cream maker and dispenser.
Abu-Saymeh et al (US 11,589,701) aircraft beverage dispenser.
Miller et al (US 6,068,875) slurried confection machine.
Etou et al (US 5,159,818) semi-frozen confection dispenser.
Calim (US 3,874,189) frozen confection machine.
Hauk (US 1,442,945) ice cream producing machine.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER R ZERPHEY whose telephone number is (571)272-5965. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00-4:00 PM.
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, Jianying Atkisson can be reached at 5712707740. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER R ZERPHEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3799