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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless 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 a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
a. feeding assembly, dispensing assembly, driver, and a refrigeration assembly in at least claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
Feeding assembly is interpreted to cover a tube as per claim 2; and equivalents thereof.
Dispensing assembly is interpreted to cover a dispensing plate as per claim 4; and equivalents thereof.
Driver is interpreted to cover a motor as per para [0022] of applicant specification; and equivalents thereof.
Refrigeration assembly is interpreted to cover a compressor, a condenser, and an evaporator as per para [0023] of applicant specification; and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 4 calls for the limitation “a third opening” (line 4); which limitation is indefinite as it is unclear as to how a third opening is introduced in the claim when there is no prior recitation of first and second openings. It raises some confusion as to whether elements are omitted in the claim.
To overcome this issue; applicant is encouraged to change the dependency of claim 4 to claim 3; since claim 3 introduce first and second openings.
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 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 and 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Johnson (US 5709095 A).
Regarding claim 1:
Johnson discloses a cold drink machine (Fig. 1-8) with a washable freezing cylinder #40, comprising a housing #12, a freezing cylinder #40, a feeding assembly #112, a dispensing assembly #116, a driver mounting frame #48, a driver #42, a stirrer #146, and a refrigeration assembly (#36, #30, & #38),
wherein the freezing cylinder, the feeding assembly, the driver mounting frame, the driver, the stirrer, and the refrigeration assembly are arranged inside the housing (Fig. 2-3), and the dispensing assembly is arranged outside the housing (Fig. 2-3);
wherein the freezing cylinder is arranged along a length direction of the housing (Fig. 2-3), and the freezing cylinder is integrally formed (Fig. 2-3);
wherein the feeding assembly is arranged at a rear end of the freezing cylinder to deliver drink ingredients into the freezing cylinder (Fig. 3);
wherein the dispensing assembly is detachably arranged at a front end of the freezing cylinder to dispense frozen drinks outside the freezing cylinder (Fig. 3; col. 4, L 50-54); and
wherein the driver mounting frame is arranged on the feeding assembly (either directly or indirectly; see Fig. 3), the driver is mounted on the driver mounting frame (Fig. 3), the stirrer is installed at a drive end of the driver and is located inside the freezing cylinder (Fig. 3 & 5), and the refrigeration assembly is configured to lower a temperature inside the freezing cylinder to a required frozen drink production temperature (col. 5, L 24-41).
Regarding claim 5:
Johnson further discloses a support frame #62, wherein the support frame is disposed inside the housing (Fig. 3), and a lower part of the driver is mounted on the support frame (Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 6:
Johnson further discloses a support tray #29, wherein the support tray is mounted on a front outer side of the housing and positioned below the dispensing assembly (see Fig. 2).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 2-3 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The closest prior art of record, Johnson (US 5709095 A); discloses the features of claim 1; and further discloses wherein the feeding assembly includes a delivery tube #112, the rear end of the freezing cylinder is provided with a first opening (opening at #110), the delivery tube has an input end and an output end (Fig. 3), and the housing is provided with a feeding port at its top (port of #44, receiving #41); and an input end of the delivery tube in communication with the feeding port and an output end in communication with the first opening (Fig. 3 & 7). There is no teaching in the prior art of record that would, reasonably and absent impermissible hindsight, motivate one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Johnson to provide a first mounting frame, and a first sealing ring, wherein the first sealing ring is arranged at the first opening, and the first mounting frame is installed at the rear end of the freezing cylinder; and wherein the delivery tube is fixed to the first mounting frame.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Crandall (US 11920836 B2), Dong (US 11019832 B2), Dong (US 10806163 B2), Caiano (US 20190124944 A1), McKay (US 8496141 B2), Leitzke (US 6637214 B1), Meserole (US 6494055 B1), Vogel (US 6220047 B1), and Poerio (US 3188826 A).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LIONEL W NOUKETCHA whose telephone number is (571)272-8438. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon - Fri: 08:00 AM - 04:00 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, Frantz Jules can be reached on 571-272-6681. 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.
/LIONEL NOUKETCHA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights