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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 2/12/26 has been entered.
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 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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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, 5 and 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Black et al. (5095710) in view of Mavridis et al. (20080092580) and Sugiyama (JPH06207768A).
Black teaches a drink maker (title) comprising:
a mixing vessel configured to receive a drink product (col. 5 line 15 ref. 20a, 20b), wherein the drink product is mixed within the mixing vessel (col. 5 lines 14-20);
a dasher (col. 5 line 17-20), driven by a drive motor (col. 5 line 14-15), configured to mix the drink product within the mixing vessel (col. 5 lines 14-20) and scrape frozen portion of the drink product from a surface (col. 5 lines 17-20, col. 9 lines 33-34) cooled by an evaporator (col. 5 lines 32-33)
a cooling circuit configured to cool the drink product within the mixing vessel (col. 5 lines 21-33), the cooling circuit comprising a compressor (col. 5 line 21) and an evaporator (col. 5 line 32 ref. 33b);
a motor condition sensor (col. 8 lines 6-8) configured to periodically detect (col. 8 lines 1-2) a motor condition associated with the drive motor (col. 8 lines 6-8) and output periodic motor condition signals indicative of the periodically detected motor condition (col. 7 lines 25-28);
a temperature sensor configured to output periodic temperature signals associated with a detected temperature of the drink product (col. 11 lines 23-26),
a controller (col. 8 line 4, line 43) configured to, before a desired thickness of the drink product has been achieved (col. 8 lines 9-12)
determine, based on one or more first motor condition signals of the periodic motor condition signals, whether a value of the motor condition satisfies a first motor condition threshold (col. 11 lines 15-17; middle) as a result of ice-build up, i.e. increased viscosity (col. 11 lines 15-17) and
in response to determining that the value of the motor condition satisfies the first motor condition threshold (col. 11 lines 15-17), turn off the compressor for a first period of time (col. 11 lines 17-19; relative viscosity below set point).
after turning off the compressor for the first period of time (col. 11 lines 18-20 relative compressor turned on again col. 11 lines 18-20), determine, based on one or more second periodic motor condition signals (col. 10 lines 54-65 i.e. during cooling) of the periodic motor condition signals (col. 10 lines 53-54 viscosity), whether the value of the motor condition satisfies a second motor condition threshold greater than the first motor condition threshold (col. 10 lines 59-65; first relative middle setting; second relative high setting; threshold greater than high viscosity setting);
and in response to determining that the value of the motor condition satisfies the second motor condition threshold (threshold greater than high viscosity setting), and until the controller determines that the value of the motor condition no longer satisfies the second motor condition threshold (col. 11 lines 6-12; loop)
repeatedly determine whether the value of the motor condition satisfies the second motor condition threshold (col. 11 lines 6-12; loop) and
after determining that the value of the motor condition no longer satisfies the second motor condition threshold (col. 11 lines 5-9), turn on the compressor (col. 11 lines 18-20; relative loop) in response to determining that a value of the motor condition no longer satisfies the first motor condition threshold (col. 11 lines 15-17; middle).
Black teaches a mixing system for semi-frozen drinks comprising motor condition control and thus one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to look to the art of condition control of semi-frozen beverage machines as taught by Mavridis.
Mavridis teaches a drink maker (title) comprising:
a mixing vessel configured to receive a drink product (par. 0026; fig. 1 ref. 10), wherein the drink product is mixed within the mixing vessel (par. 0026);
a dasher (par. 0029 ref. 54), driven by a drive motor (par. 0029), configured to mix the drink product within the mixing vessel (par. 0033)
a cooling circuit configured to cool the drink product within the mixing vessel (par. 0032), the cooling circuit comprising a compressor (par. 0032) and evaporator (par. 0032);
a product condition sensor (par. 0031 overload protection; par. 0033) configured to periodically detect (par. 0033 during and relative cycle repeats) a product condition associated with the drive motor (par. 0033) and output periodic motor condition signals indicative of the periodically detected motor condition (par. 0033; when exceeds consistency),
a temperature sensor configured to output periodic temperature signals associated with a detected temperature of the drink product (par. 0034),
a controller (par. 0033; product consistency control mechanism) configured to,
determine a temperature of the drink product based on the periodic temperature signals (par. 0034; “sensed directly”)
compare the temperature of the drink product to a target temperature (par. 0034; compare relative “in response to product temperature) and
before the target temperature of the drink product has been achieved (par. 0033; relative desired consistency exceeded)
determine, based on one or more first condition signals of the periodic condition signals (par. 0033), whether a value of the condition satisfies a first condition threshold (par. 0033; too cold, exceeds desired consistency) and
in response to determining that the value of the condition satisfies the first condition threshold (par. 0033; too cold, exceeds desired consistency), turn off the flow of refrigerant to the evaporator for a first period of time (par. 0033; period of time with respect to till desired consistency).
With respect to the controller “configured to”. Though Black is silent to determining a temperature of the drink product itself. Since Black teaches a controller and temperature sensors associated with the detected temperature of the product for controlling a target viscosity, since temperature and viscosity are related and indirectly proportional and since Mavridis teaches control of the viscosity of the product by sensing product temperature directly (par. 0034). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to further incorporate the teachings of direct temperature sensing of the product as taught by Mavridis (par. 0034) for its art recognized and the purpose of Black of providing temperature information to the controller to provide the proper amount of refrigerant to flow for achieving a same accurate control over viscosity of the frozen beverage as desired by Black and Mavridis.
Though Black is silent to comparing the temperature of the drink product to a target temperature, importantly the controller is “configured to” and the claim is silent to an action as determined by the comparison. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the controller which compares temperature signals as taught by Black since Mavridis teaches control of the viscosity of the product by sensing product temperature directly (par. 0034) for its art recognized and the purpose of Black of providing temperature information to the controller to provide the proper amount of refrigerant to flow for achieving a same accurate control over viscosity of the frozen beverage as desired by Black and Mavridis.
Though Black is silent to scraping relative a surface of the evaporator. Since Black teaches harvesting ice crystals by a dasher which scrapes against the cooling element wall (col. 5 lines 16-20), since Black teaches the sensing of the motor condition as a result of the friction by the dasher moving against the cooling element wall (col. 9 lines 33-34) and since providing the evaporator in the cooling chamber is recognized as an alternative to external cooling by Mavridis relative a same refrigeration compressor and evaporator (fig. 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to scrape a surface of the evaporator as taught by Mavridis thus providing an obvious alternative which does change the operation of the beverage makes and which achieves a same expected result of harvesting ice crystals as taught by Black and providing specific viscosity information for obtaining a desired product viscosity.
In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide an evaporator which extends into the mixing chamber for scraping ice from the surface thereof as opposed to an external evaporator thus achieving the advantage of limiting dead spots as a result of pronounced cooling internal to the mixing product in the region of the dasher.
Black teaches the controller provides for the periodic and continuous determining of the beverage viscosity determined as a function of the power or torque consumption experienced by each motor, wherein an increasing torque reading indicates an increasingly viscous beverage, as greater power is required to maintain a constant stirring rate of the harvesting mechanism (col. 8 lines 4-12). Mavridis teaches suitable overload protection to prevent damage to the drive assembly (par. 0031) are known. Thus since both teach motor condition control and detecting motor conditions relative to motor condition thresholds associated with the motor and since both teach motor conditions as a result of an increased viscosity as a function of a dasher driven by a motor. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to look to the art of overload protection as taught by Mavridis of a motor which scrapes a surface of the cooling cylinder (pg. 3 par. 2) as a function of motor condition signals as determined by predetermined values as taught by Sugiyama (pg. 3 par. 4 and 5)
More specifically Sugiyama teaches an inner cooling cylinder under the operation of a compressor and an auger and auger motor for scraping ice generated on the surface of the cooling cylinder and detecting load applied to the auger motor due to the resistance of ice increasing (pg. 12 par. 3). Sugiyama teaches detecting load applied to the auger motor during increased resistance of ice (pg. 12 par. 3) and reducing the operation of the compressor in the instance of increased resistance, followed by after a time, should the load on the auger not be decreased due to changing the compressor conditions, issuing a stop command of both cooling and auger motor operation (pg. 13 par. 1-3) thus preventing overload of the auger motor (pg. 12 3 to last par. “Here…”.
Though silent to the motor condition associated with a stalling of the motor, it is initially noted the motor condition is merely associated with stalling. Thus since Black teaches motor condition thresholds resulting from ice build-up, i.e. increased viscosity, since Black teaches looping to achieve continuous cooling relative predetermined multiple different motor condition thresholds and since the stalling of the motor is due to a same increased viscosity which exceeds a predetermined viscosity limit detected by motor condition of the dasher during harvesting as taught by Black (col. 11 lines 15-18) where Mavridis recognizes suitable overload protection to prevent damage to the drive assembly (par. 0031).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to associate the motor condition as taught by Black, with a stalling of the motor thus preventing an increase in freezing or stiffness which is recognized as undesirable by controlling the compressor to turn off thereby returning the product back to the desired viscosity and eliminating the scraping load on the motor as taught by Black (col. 11 lines 2-3).
In addition since Black teaches a first motor condition threshold which turns off the compressor to stop refrigeration to stop an active cooling process (col. 11 lines 16-18) and since Black further recognizes a second motor threshold, higher than the first which indicates additional power or torque consumption of the motor due to increased freezing and a solution of terminating the freezing to quickly reduce the load on the motor (col. 11 lines 1-3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to associate the motor condition as taught by Black, with a stalling of the motor thus preventing an increase in freezing or stiffness which is recognized as undesirable by controlling the compressor to turn off thereby returning the product back to the desired viscosity and eliminating the scraping load on the motor as taught by Black (col. 11 lines 2-3) and thus providing a secondary abnormal state solution, i.e. overload protection as taught by both which as a result of a first motor detection signal recognizing a further motor detection signal, i.e. high as taught by Black which is associated with a stalling of the drive motor thus achieving the art recognized advantage of recognizing motor conditions signals determined by thresholds and preventing burning of the winding of the auger motor and/or damaging drive parts in the instant the normal operation is not restored after turning off the compressor as taught by Sugiyama and Black.
In addition, it is not necessary that suggestion or motivation be found within the four comers of the reference(s) themselves. "The obviousness analysis cannot be confined by a formalistic conception of the words teaching, suggestion, and motivation, or by overemphasis on the importance of... the explicit content of issued patents." KSR Int'l. Co. v. Teleflex lnc., 550 U.S. 398, 419. "The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results." KSR, 550 U.S. at 416., The question to be asked is "whether the improvement is more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions." KSR, 550 U.S. at 417.
In addition, a conclusion of obviousness can be made from common knowledge and common sense of the person of ordinary skill in the art without any specific hint or suggestion in a particular reference. See In re Bozek, 416 F.2d 1385, 1390 (CCPA 1969). Such as in the instant case, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to associate the motor condition as taught by Black, with a stalling of the motor by performing a same function, i.e. motor condition sensing though for a different reason, as a result of preventing increased freezing prior to the undesirable condition, such as in the instant case motor stalling by eliminating the scraping load on the motor as taught by Black (col. 11 lines 2-3) and Sugiyama.
In addition with respect to the second motor condition threshold, higher than the first. Black teaches detecting during freezing of the product second motor condition threshold, higher than the first (chart A, i.e. middle, high) for a same art recognized purpose of affecting operation of the appliance when required to reduce the temperature and subsequently the viscosity of the product due to motor condition thresholds (middle high).
Thus since Black teaches harvesting ice crystals by a dasher which scrapes against the cooling element wall (col. 5 lines 16-20), since Black teaches the sensing of the motor condition as a result of the friction by the dasher moving against the cooling element wall (col. 9 lines 33-34) and ceasing operation of the compressor to return operation back to the desired state and after turning off the compressor for the first period of time determine current viscosity corresponding to a desired final viscosity (col. 11 lines 12-20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to further configure the controller to determine based on a second motor condition signals of second periodic motor condition signals, such as with respect to the motor auger becoming increasingly overloaded as taught by Sugiyama, whether the value of the motor condition satisfies a second motor condition threshold greater than a first motor condition threshold, relative after operation of the compressor does not decrease the motor condition as further taught by Sugiyama and Black (col. 11 lines 17-19; relative viscosity below set point) and in response to determining that the value of the motor condition satisfies the second motor condition threshold, i.e. the auger motor load does not decrease, determine whether the value of the motor condition satisfies the second motor condition threshold as taught by Sugiyama (pg. 13 par. 3: increasingly overloaded relative time), cycle the drive motor off (pg. 13 par. 5) and on (pg. 13 par. 10) until the controller determines that the value of the motor condition does not satisfy the second motor condition threshold (pg. 13 par. 10 returns to initial state). Thus providing a secondary abnormal state solution after the affecting operation of the compressor as taught by both which as a result of stopping the motor prevents burning of the winding of the auger motor and/or damaging drive parts in the instant the normal operation is not restored after turning off the compressor as taught by Black.
Though silent to repeatedly determine whether the value of the motor condition satisfies the second motor condition threshold specific to a condition associated with a stalling of the motor. Since Sugiyama teaches determine whether the value of the motor condition satisfies the second motor condition threshold (pg. 13 par. 3: increasingly overloaded relative time), cycle the drive motor off (pg. 13 par. 5) and on (pg. 13 par. 6) until the controller determines that the value of the motor condition does not satisfy the second motor condition threshold (pg. 13 par. 10 returns to initial state).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to further configure the controller to repeatedly determine during the forced stop period as taught by Sugiyama (pg. 13 par. 6) and looping as taught by Black for its same art recognize purpose of determining by the controller the value of the motor condition does not satisfy the second motor condition threshold (pg. 13 par. 10 returns to initial state) so that normal operation is commenced upon the load of the auger motor returns to an initial state as further taught (pg. 13 par. 6).
Though silent to repeatedly cycling the motor on and off during the stop period. Importantly since it is the motor condition which dictates the viscosity of the product of Black, since Black teaches cycling of the components to both maintain and achieve specific motor conditions indicative of states of the product and since it is the motor condition which is determined to indicate a specific condition. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to further configure the controller to repeatedly cycle the motor on and off thus providing repeated determination of the controlling parameter, i.e. motor power consumed during the forced stop period as taught by Sugiyama (pg. 13 par. 6) and looping as taught by Black for its same art recognize purpose of determining by the controller the value of the motor condition does not satisfy the second motor condition threshold (pg. 13 par. 10 returns to initial state) so that normal operation is commenced upon the load of the auger motor returns to an initial state as further taught (pg. 13 par. 6).
In addition, though silent to repeatedly cycling the motor on and off, it is not necessary that suggestion or motivation be found within the four comers of the reference(s) themselves. "The obviousness analysis cannot be confined by a formalistic conception of the words teaching, suggestion, and motivation, or by overemphasis on the importance of... the explicit content of issued patents." KSR Int'l. Co. v. Teleflex lnc., 550 U.S. 398, 419. "The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results." KSR, 550 U.S. at 416., The question to be asked is "whether the improvement is more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions." KSR, 550 U.S. at 417.
In addition, a conclusion of obviousness can be made from common knowledge and common sense of the person of ordinary skill in the art without any specific hint or suggestion in a particular reference. See In re Bozek, 416 F.2d 1385, 1390 (CCPA 1969). Such as in the instant case, since it is the motor value which dictates the threshold values and since Sugiyama teaches a stop period, where it would be advantageous for production to return to initial operation states upon motor conditions thresholds no longer being met as taught by Black as opposed to by time as taught by Sugiyama. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to configure the controller to repeatedly cycle the motor on and off thus providing repeated determination of the controlling parameter, i.e. motor power consumed during the forced stop period as taught by Sugiyama (pg. 13 par. 6) and looping as taught by Black for its same art recognize purpose of determining by the controller the value of the motor condition does not satisfy the second motor condition threshold (pg. 13 par. 10 returns to initial state) so that normal operation is commenced upon the load of the auger motor returns to an initial state as further taught (pg. 13 par. 6) in its most timely manner due to providing additional determination defined by motor condition as opposed to time.
With respect to claim 5, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to the controller is further configured to alert a user of the drink maker in response to determining that the value of the motor condition satisfies the second motor condition threshold (col. 3 lines 56-57) thus providing the user with an alert by an audible alarm as taught by Black (col. 7 lines 5-6), such as after the time the abnormal state has been resolved as taught by Sugiyama (pg. 13 3rd from last par.) thus resuming normal operation or subsequent usage.
With respect to claim 7, though Black is silent to scraping relative a surface of the evaporator which is a drum as taught by Mavridis. Since Black teaches harvesting ice crystals by a dasher which scrapes against the cooling element wall (col. 5 lines 16-20), since Black teaches the sensing of the motor condition as a result of the friction by the dasher moving against the cooling element wall (col. 9 lines 33-34) and since providing the evaporator in the cooling chamber is recognized as an alternative to external cooling by Mavridis relative a same refrigeration compressor and evaporator. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to teach the drum within the mixing vessel as taught by Mavridis and the motor condition as taught by Black indicative of ice build up on the exterior surface of the drum as taught by Mavridis thus providing an obvious alternative which does change the operation of the beverage makes and which achieves a same expected result of harvesting ice crystals as taught by Black and providing specific viscosity information for obtaining a desired product viscosity.
In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide an evaporator which extends into the mixing chamber as a drum as taught by Mavridis for scraping ice from the surface thereof as opposed to an external evaporator thus achieving the advantage of limiting dead spots as a result of pronounced cooling internal to the mixing product in the region of the dasher.
Claim 8, the controller is further configured to periodically repeat determining whether the value of the motor condition satisfies a first motor condition threshold (col. 8 lines 4-5).
Claim 9, wherein the motor condition comprises at least one of: a motor electrical current (col. 7 lines 23-24), motor torque (col. 8 lines 7-9).
Claim 10, the motor condition comprises the motor electrical current of the drive motor, and wherein the first motor condition threshold is associated with a predefined motor electrical current value (col. 8 lines 15-20).
Response to Arguments
With respect to applicants urgings directed to the second motor condition threshold. Importantly it is initially noted Black teaches a first motor condition threshold (Medium Chart A) which turns off the compressor to stop refrigeration to stop an active cooling process (col. 11 lines 16-18 Medium) and Black further recognizes a second motor threshold (High Chart A), higher than the first which indicates additional power or torque consumption of the motor due to increased freezing and a solution of terminating the freezing to quickly reduce the load on the motor (col. 11 lines 1-3).
With respect to applicants urging directed to Sugiyama, it is noted Sugiyama is relied upon with respect to the teachings of pg. 12 4th to last par. To pg. 13 par. 1-3.
Sugiyama teaches an inner cooling cylinder under the operation of a compressor and an auger and auger motor for scraping ice generated on the surface of the cooling cylinder (pg. 12 par. 4). Sugiyama teaches detecting load applied to the auger motor during increased resistance of ice (pg. 12 par. 8) and reducing the operation of the compressor in the instance of increased resistance, followed by after a time, should the load on the auger not be decreased due to changing the compressor conditions, issuing a stop command of both cooling and auger motor operation (pg. 13 par. 3-5).
Thus Sugiyama is not relied upon with respect to applicants urged “10 minute window” though it is noted this window is to return the load applied to the auger to a normal state.
With respect to applicants urging Sugiyama is silent to repeatedly cycling the motor on and off.
Though silent to repeatedly cycling the motor on and off during the stop period. Importantly since it is the motor condition which dictates the viscosity of the product of Black, since Black teaches cycling of the components to both maintain and achieve specific motor conditions indicative of states of the product and since it is the motor condition which is determined to indicate a specific condition. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to further configure the controller to repeatedly cycle the motor on and off thus providing repeated determination of the controlling parameter, i.e. motor power consumed during the forced stop period as taught by Sugiyama (pg. 13 par. 6) and looping as taught by Black for its same art recognize purpose of determining by the controller the value of the motor condition does not satisfy the second motor condition threshold (pg. 13 par. 10 returns to initial state) so that normal operation is commenced upon the load of the auger motor returns to an initial state as further taught (pg. 13 par. 6).
In addition, though silent to repeatedly cycling the motor on and off, it is not necessary that suggestion or motivation be found within the four comers of the reference(s) themselves. "The obviousness analysis cannot be confined by a formalistic conception of the words teaching, suggestion, and motivation, or by overemphasis on the importance of... the explicit content of issued patents." KSR Int'l. Co. v. Teleflex lnc., 550 U.S. 398, 419. "The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results." KSR, 550 U.S. at 416., The question to be asked is "whether the improvement is more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions." KSR, 550 U.S. at 417.
In addition, a conclusion of obviousness can be made from common knowledge and common sense of the person of ordinary skill in the art without any specific hint or suggestion in a particular reference. See In re Bozek, 416 F.2d 1385, 1390 (CCPA 1969). Such as in the instant case, since it is the motor value which dictates the threshold values and since Sugiyama teaches a stop period, where it would be advantageous for production to return to initial operation states upon motor conditions thresholds no longer being met as taught by Black as opposed to by time as taught by Sugiyama. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to configure the controller to repeatedly cycle the motor on and off thus providing repeated determination of the controlling parameter, i.e. motor power consumed during the forced stop period as taught by Sugiyama (pg. 13 par. 6) and looping as taught by Black for its same art recognize purpose of determining by the controller the value of the motor condition does not satisfy the second motor condition threshold (pg. 13 par. 10 returns to initial state) so that normal operation is commenced upon the load of the auger motor returns to an initial state as further taught (pg. 13 par. 6) in its most timely manner due to providing additional determination defined by motor condition as opposed to time.
With respect to applicants urging of the introduction of water by Sugityama. It is noted Sugiyama is relied upon to teach the solution to preventing burning of the motor due to abnormal motor load conditions. It is further noted the claims do not exclude additional solution and more specifically are open as the claims are drawn to “comprising” language.
With respect to applicants urging directed to the first motor condition Black is relied upon to teach such with respect to the different detected motor thresholds (chart a; Med High)
Thus with respect to applicants urging “while the second motor condition threshold may no longer be satisfied, it is possible that the first motor condition threshold may still be satisfied”.
Black specifically teach such, i.e. though no longer in the High threshold, the Medium threshold is still met (pg. 11 lines 1-6).
With respect to applicants urging directed to the relying on KSR for the rejections. Importantly the cited prior art provides the motivation and "The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results." KSR, 550 U.S. at 416., The question to be asked is "whether the improvement is more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions." KSR, 550 U.S. at 417.
Black teaches motor condition thresholds resulting from ice build-up, i.e. increased viscosity, since Black teaches looping to achieve continuous cooling relative predetermined multiple different motor condition thresholds and since the stalling of the motor is due to a same increased viscosity which exceeds a predetermined viscosity limit detected by motor condition of the dasher during harvesting as taught by Black (col. 11 lines 15-18) where Mavridis recognizes suitable overload protection to prevent damage to the drive assembly (par. 0031).
Black teaches a first motor condition threshold which turns off the compressor to stop refrigeration to stop an active cooling process (col. 11 lines 16-18). Black further recognizes a second motor threshold, higher than the first which indicates additional power or torque consumption of the motor due to increased freezing and a solution of terminating the freezing to quickly reduce the load on the motor (col. 11 lines 1-3).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Steven Leff whose telephone number is (571) 272-6527. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 8:30 - 5:00.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Erik Kashnikow can be reached at (571) 270-3475. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/STEVEN N LEFF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1792