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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “106” has been used to designate both “pour-in opening” and “cover sealing opening” (see para. [0122]).
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: “117a” and “117b” (see Fig. 6).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claims 5 and 6 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the opening in the housing" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It appears this should be changed to “the opening in the mixing vessel”.
Claim 6 is rejected by virtue of its dependence on claim 5.
Claim 11 recites “the liquid runoff” and “the tray” in line three. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, the claim is presumed to be dependent on claim 10 rather than claim 1.
Claim 12 recites “an engaged position” and it unclear if this is the same engaged position previously recited in claim 1 or another position. The specification appears to disclose a single engaged position (Fig. 1, mixing vessel secured to the housing). This could be amended as “the engaged position”.
Claim 13 is rejected by virtue of its dependency on claim 12.
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.
Claims 1, 5 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cocchi (US 20160157509).
Regarding claim 1, Cocchi discloses a device for making drinks (slush drinks, Abstract) as shown below:
PNG
media_image1.png
719
876
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Cocchi discloses the device comprises: a housing (base 2); a mixing vessel (chamber 3) configured to receive a drink product; a drive motor positioned in the housing (para. [0028]); a dasher (stirrer 8) configured to mix the drink product in the mixing vessel, the dasher driven by the drive motor (para. [0028]), wherein the mixing vessel has an opening through which the dasher is received (Fig. 2) in the mixing vessel when the mixing vessel is engaged with the housing in an engaged position (Fig. 2); a cooling circuit (para. [0027]) at least partly positioned in the housing (Fig. 2), the cooling circuit configured to cool the drink product while the drink product is mixed in the mixing vessel; and a coupling mechanism (locking means 12) configured to releasably retain the mixing vessel against the housing in the engaged position, wherein the mixing vessel is configured to engage the housing to seal the opening (at ring seal 20) when in the engaged position (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 5, Cocchi discloses wherein the cooling circuit comprises an evaporator (para. [0004]), the evaporator configured to extend through the opening of the housing (extends through an opening in the housing – the opening circumscribed by ring seal 20, Fig. 2 and an opening in the mixing vessel, Fig. 2) when the mixing vessel is engaged with the housing in the engaged position (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 14, Cocchi discloses wherein the coupling mechanism is configured to engage with the mixing vessel proximate to a rear end of the mixing vessel (Fig. 2, shown above for claim 1), and wherein the opening of the mixing vessel is at the rear end of the mixing vessel (Fig. 2, shown above for claim 1).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cocchi (US 20160157509) as applied to claim 5 above and in further view of Grampassi (applicant disclosed WO 2021009788A1).
Regarding claim 6, Cocchi does not expressly disclose a temperature sensor.
However, Grampassi discloses a drink machine (para. [01]) and Grampassi teaches an evaporator (para. [04]) and further teaches a temperature sensor positioned in or on the evaporator (para. [51]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Cocchi where the device further comprises a temperature sensor positioned in or on the evaporator.
The person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to include a temperature sensor in order to control the temperature of the drink being dispensed (Grampassi, para. [51]).
Claims 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cocchi (US 20160157509) as applied to claim 1 above and in further view of Bond (US 20080098765A1).
Regarding claim 7, Cocchi discloses the mixing vessel further comprises at least one first protrusion (on the lid of the mixing vessel) configured to engage with the coupling mechanism as shown below:
PNG
media_image2.png
337
1072
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Otherwise, Bond teaches a device for making drinks (Abstract) and further teaches a coupling mechanism (posts 24 and receiving holes, para. [0017]) and wherein the mixing vessel comprises at least one first protrusion (a post 24) configured to engage with the coupling mechanism (engages with receiving holes, para. [0017]) as shown below:
PNG
media_image3.png
900
854
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Cocchi wherein the coupling mechanism (locking means 12) is substituted for or additionally comprises the coupling mechanism of Bond (para. [0017]) such that the mixing vessel further comprises at least one first protrusion configured to engage with the coupling mechanism.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use a coupling mechanism having multiple coupling points (Bond, Fig. 3 with or without the locking means 12 of Cocchi) for a secure engagement.
Regarding claim 8, Cocchi does not expressly disclose the mixing vessel further comprises at least one second protrusion configured to contact an upper edge of the housing.
However, Bond further teaches wherein the mixing vessel further comprises at least one second protrusion (Fig. 3, shown above for claim 7) configured to contact an upper edge of the housing (para. [0017]) and guide the mixing vessel into alignment with the coupling mechanism (multiple protrusions allow the user to correctly align the mixing vessel, Bond, Fig. 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Cocchi wherein the mixing vessel further comprises at least one second protrusion configured to contact an upper edge of the housing and guide the mixing vessel into alignment with the coupling mechanism.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use multiple protrusions in order to ensure the user correctly positions the mixing vessel to facilitate installation.
Regarding claim 9, Cocchi does not expressly disclose the mixing vessel further comprises at least one third protrusion.
However, Bond further teaches wherein the mixing vessel further comprises at least one third protrusion (Fig. 3, shown above for claim 7) configured to be received within a slot below the upper edge of the housing (the upper edge, shown above for claim 7, has a receiving slot: hole or slit, Bond, para. [0017]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Cocchi wherein the mixing vessel further comprises at least one third protrusion configured to be received within a slot below the upper edge of the housing.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use multiple protrusions received in slots in order to ensure the user correctly positions the mixing vessel to facilitate installation.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cocchi (US 20160157509) as applied to claim 1 above and in further view of Ugolini (US 20130152620) and Morten et al. (Applicant disclosed EP 2277386B1).
Regarding claim 10, Cocchi does not expressly disclose a tray.
However, Ugolini teaches a device for making a drink (beverages, Abstract) and further teaches a tray (channel 104, structure of channel 104 shown in Fig. 2 and Fig. 6 broadly meeting the limitation of “tray” in that it forms a shallow container or passage for fluid) positioned below at least a portion of the mixing vessel (container 12) and configured to receive liquid runoff from an outer surface of the mixing vessel.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Cocchi wherein the device further comprises a tray positioned below at least a portion of the mixing vessel and configured to receive liquid runoff from an outer surface of the mixing vessel.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include a tray in order to control condensing water.
Assuming, arguendo, that Ugolini does not disclose a tray. Morten et al. discloses a device for making a drink (para. [0001]) and further teaches a removable tray for collecting liquid (collector 24 is a tray, para. [0038]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Cocchi in view of Ugolini wherein the fluid collection channel comprises a removable tray.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include a removable tray in order to facilitate cleaning of internal surfaces in contact with moisture (and thus susceptible to microorganism growth).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cocchi (US 20160157509) in view of Ugolini (US 20130152620) and Morten et al. (Applicant disclosed EP 2277386B1) as applied to claim 10 above and in further view of Sathyanarayan et al. (attached WO 2023286000A1) and Lardelli et al. (US 9198536).
Regarding claim 11, Cocchi does not disclose a tray.
However, Ugolini who is relied upon as discussed in claim 10 above to teach a tray (tray/channel 104), further teaches a channel comprising an angled surface formed on an upper edge of the housing above the tray and below the mixing vessel such that the channel is defined between an outer surface of the mixing vessel and an upper edge of the housing and which would guide condensation toward the tray as shown below:
PNG
media_image4.png
269
800
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Otherwise, Sathyanarayan et al. discloses a device which is analogous art at least because it is pertinent to guiding condensation (Abstract) toward a collection tray (tray 80) and Sathyanarayan et al. teaches using angled surfaces (tray 20) to guide condensation toward the collection tray (tray 80, Fig. 1).
Likewise, Lardelli et al. discloses a device which is analogous art at least because it is reasonably pertinent to the problem of guiding fluid toward a collection tray (tray 11) and Lardelli et al. teaches angled surfaces (on beverage dispenser 2, Fig. 3 and on lid 13, Fig. 1) to guide fluid toward the collection tray.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Cocchi wherein the upper edge of the housing has angled surfaces lying between the mixing vessel and the collection tray such that the device includes a channel defined between an outer surface of the mixing vessel and an upper edge of the housing, wherein the channel is configured to allow the liquid runoff to pass through the channel and into the tray.
The person of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to use angled surfaces in order to direct condensation toward the tray to prevent leakage of condensation.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cocchi (US 20160157509) as applied to claim 1 above and in further view of Versteeg (US 20170030467).
Regarding claim 12, Cocchi discloses the device further comprises a seal (ring seal 20), wherein at least a portion of the seal is positioned between the mixing vessel and the housing when the mixing vessel is engaged with the housing in an engaged position (Fig. 2).
Cocchi does not explicitly state that the seal is flexible.
However, Versteeg teaches a device for making drinks (frozen product, Abstract) and further teaches the use of flexible material for a seal (para. [0092]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Cocchi wherein the seal is a flexible seal.
The person of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to use a seal made of flexible material as being recognized in the art as suitable for its intended purpose. See Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) and In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cocchi (US 20160157509) in view of Versteeg (US 20170030467) as applied to claim 12 above and in further view of Midden (US 7152765) and Ugolini (US 20130152620).
Regarding claim 13, Cocchi does not expressly disclose a face seal portion and also a radial seal portion.
However, Midden disclose a device for making drinks (beverages, Abstract) having a mixing vessel (hopper 42) and cooling circuit (chiller 40) and Midden further teaches a seal comprising a face seal portion configured to interface between a surface of a mixing vessel and a surface of a housing (condenser 40 being connected to and part of the housing), and wherein the seal further comprises a radial seal portion (Fig. 18) configured to extend into and contact a perimeter of an opening in the mixing vessel (hopper 42) as shown below:
PNG
media_image5.png
687
1405
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Likewise, Ugolini discloses a device for making a drink (beverages, Abstract) and further teaches wherein a seal comprises a face seal portion configured to interface between a surface of the mixing vessel and a surface of the housing, and wherein the seal further comprises a radial seal portion configured to extend into and contact a perimeter of an opening (Fig. 2) as shown below:
PNG
media_image6.png
872
1255
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Cocchi wherein the flexible seal comprises a face seal portion configured to interface between a surface of the mixing vessel and a surface of the housing, and wherein the flexible seal further comprises a radial seal portion configured to extend into and contact a perimeter of the opening.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include a face seal portion and a radial seal portion in order to increase seal contact surface area and improve the seal.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cocchi (US 20160157509) as applied to claim 1 above and in further view of Cocchi et al. (Applicant provided EP 2062481B1) hereinafter “Cocchi II” and Grampassi (US 8887522) hereinafter “Grampassi II”.
Regarding claim 15, Cocchi is silent as to a baffle.
However, Cocchi II discloses a device for making drinks (para. [0001]) and further teaches an internal baffle (projections 26) configured to direct slush flow in the mixing vessel toward the dasher (para. [0031]), and wherein the at least one internal baffle comprises at least one of: …..a side baffle extending parallel to a primary axis of the dasher (Fig. 1 and Fig. 7).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Cocchi wherein the mixing vessel comprises at least one internal baffle configured to direct slush flow in the mixing vessel toward the dasher, and wherein the at least one internal baffle comprises at least one of: a side baffle extending parallel to a primary axis of the dasher (axis 6, Fig. 1).
The person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to include an internal baffle in order to facilitate mixing (Cocchi II, para. [0038]).
Otherwise, Grampassi II discloses a device for making drinks (col. 1, lines 5-10) and Grampassi II teaches wherein a mixing vessel comprises at least one internal baffle (wall 37, Fig. 2 is substantially similar to Applicant’s baffle 107, see Applicant’s Figs. 13A, 13C, and 14A) configured to direct slush flow in the mixing vessel toward the dasher (helix mixing device 3, col. 5, lines 33-37), and wherein the at least one internal baffle comprises at least one of: a front baffle extending perpendicular to the primary axis of the dasher (wall 37, Fig. 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Cocchi wherein the mixing vessel comprises at least one internal baffle configured to direct slush flow in the mixing vessel toward the dasher, and wherein the at least one internal baffle comprises at least one of: a front baffle extending perpendicular to the primary axis of the dasher.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include a front baffle in order to facilitate mixing by recirculating slush flow back to the dasher (Grampassi II, col. 5, lines 33-37).
Claims 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cocchi (US 20160157509) in view of Cocchi et al. (Applicant provided EP 2062481B1) hereinafter “Cocchi II” and Grampassi (US 8887522) hereinafter “Grampassi II” as applied to claim 15 above and in further view of Applicant provided TW 161842 hereinafter “TW ‘842” or Hollander et al. (US 20040056053).
Regarding claim 16, the combined teaching of the above-cited references for claim 15 above disclose wherein the at least one internal baffle comprises at least the front baffle (Grampassi II, wall 37).
Insomuch as the above-cited references do not expressly disclose an indentation; TW ‘842 teaches a device which is analogous art at least because it is reasonably pertinent to the problem of selecting external features for vessels and TW ‘842 discloses a vessel (“box”, page 1) having an indentation on an exterior of the vessel as shown below:
PNG
media_image7.png
378
724
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Likewise, Hollander et al. teaches a device which is analogous art at least because it is reasonably pertinent to the problem of selecting features of vessels (cylindrical body 12) and Hollander et al. teaches an indentation on the exterior surface (Figs. 1-2) as shown below:
PNG
media_image8.png
872
1187
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Cocchi wherein the front baffle corresponds to an indentation on an exterior of the mixing vessel.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include an indentation on the front of the vessel in order to facilitate storage (hanging, TW ‘842, page 1) and to provide for a simple handle.
Regarding claim 17, the above-cited references for claim 15 do not expressly disclose a vertical protrusion.
However, TW ‘842 further teaches a vertical protrusion extending from the indentation (shown above for claim 16).
Likewise, Hollander et al. teaches an indentation on the exterior surface and wherein a vertical protrusion extends from a front surface of the vessel above a front edge of the indentation (Figs. 1-2) as shown above for claim 16.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Cocchi wherein the device further comprises a vertical protrusion extending from a front surface of the mixing vessel (corresponding to the location of the front baffle) above a front edge of the indentation.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include an indentation and a vertical protrusion on the front of the vessel in order to facilitate storage (hanging, TW ‘842, page 1) and to provide for a simple handle.
Claims 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cocchi (US 20160157509) in view of Ugolini (US 20130152620) and Li (Applicant provided CN 217284664U).
Regarding claim 18, Cocchi discloses a pour-in opening (at lid 28 and comprising tank 23) in a top surface of the mixing vessel (Fig. 9), the pour-in opening comprising an aperture (outlet 25, Fig. 5) configured to allow liquid flow into an interior chamber of the mixing vessel, and the pour-in opening further comprising a surface that inclines with respect to a primary axis of the dasher (base of tank 23 is inclined, Fig. 9).
Otherwise, Ugolini discloses a device for making a drink (Abstract) and further teaches a direct pour-in opening (top opening 13, Fig. 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Cocchi wherein the pour-in opening is substituted for a direct pour-in opening.
The person of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to utilize a direct pour-in opening in order to eliminate automated metering (meter 27 and valve 29) such as to simplify manufacturing. See In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 144 USPQ 347 (CCPA 1965) and In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975).
Insomuch as Cocchi in view of Ugolini does not disclose a surface that inclines with respect to a primary axis of the dasher; Li teaches a device with a dasher which is analogous art at least because it is reasonably pertinent to the problem of feeding ingredients into a mixing chamber (comprising dasher 23, Fig. 3) and Li teaches a pour-in opening comprising an aperture configured to allow liquid flow into an interior chamber of the mixing vessel, and the pour-in opening further comprising a surface that inclines with respect to a primary axis of the dasher (Fig. 3) as shown below:
PNG
media_image9.png
730
837
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Cocchi in view of Ugolini wherein the device comprises a pour-in opening comprising an aperture configured to allow liquid flow into an interior chamber of the mixing vessel, and the pour-in opening further comprising a surface that inclines with respect to a primary axis of the dasher.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include an inclined surface to assist in funneling ingredients into the mixing vessel.
Regarding claim 20, Cocchi does not disclose the aperture of the pour-in opening is positioned proximate to a rear of the mixing vessel.
However, Ugolini discloses a device for making a drink (Abstract) and further teaches a pour-in opening positioned proximate to a rear of the mixing vessel (Fig. 2) as shown below:
PNG
media_image10.png
580
685
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Cocchi wherein the pour-in opening and its aperture are positioned proximate to a rear of the mixing vessel.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to position the pour-in opening at the rear in order to ensure ingredients are introduced further from the dispenser to ensure good mixing or otherwise would have found it obvious to place the aperture at the rear and produce the expected/predictable result of feeding ingredients to the mixing chamber. See In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cocchi (US 20160157509) in view of Ugolini (US 20130152620) and Li (Applicant provided CN 217284664U) as applied to claim 18 above and in further view of Zani (US 4332539).
Regarding claim 19, the above-cited references do not expressly disclose wherein the aperture is configured as a slot having a width dimensioned to prevent passage of a human finger.
However, Zani discloses a device which is analogous art at least because it is reasonably pertinent to the problem of feeding ingredients through an opening serving as a machine guard and Zani further teaches a slot (slot 46) and Zani further teaches sizing the slot to prevent passage of a finger (col. 5, lines 23-27).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the device of Cocchi wherein the aperture is configured as a slot having a width dimensioned to prevent passage of a human finger.
The person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to size the aperture to prevent operator injury.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-3, 5, 10 and 12 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 10 and 23 of copending Application No. 18/423894 hereinafter “’894”.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all of the claimed elements and features of claims 1-3, 5, 10 and 12 of the instant application are claimed in claims 1, 10 and 23 of ‘894 and where terminology differs in the claims of ‘894, the terms are deemed to meet the limitation of the instant claims. Specifically, a coupling mechanism and cooling circuit of the instant claim 1 are limitations deemed to be met by a lever movable between coupling positions and an evaporator, respectively, as recited in claim 1 of ‘894.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim 6 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 10 and 23 of copending Application No. 18/423894 hereinafter “’894” in view of Grampassi (applicant disclosed WO 2021009788A1).
Regarding claim 6, ‘894 does not claim a temperature sensor positioned on the evaporator.
However, Grampassi teaches a temperature sensor positioned on an evaporator. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the claimed invention of ‘894 to include a temperature sensor positioned on the evaporator.
Claim 11 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 10 and 23 of copending Application No. 18/423894 hereinafter “’894” in view of Ugolini (US 20130152620), Sathyanarayan et al. (WO 2023286000A1) and Lardelli et al. (US 9198536).
Regarding claim 11, ‘894 does not claim a channel to pass liquid runoff to the tray.
However, Ugolini teaches a channel comprising an angled surface formed on an upper edge of the housing above the tray and below the mixing vessel such that the channel is defined between an outer surface of the mixing vessel and an upper edge of the housing and which would guide condensation toward the tray (as shown above for claim 11 in the 35 U.S.C. 103 section).
Otherwise, Sathyanarayan et al. discloses a device which is analogous art at least because it is pertinent to guiding condensation (Abstract) toward a collection tray (tray 80) and Sathyanarayan et al. teaches using angled surfaces (of tray 20) to guide condensation toward the collection tray (tray 80, Fig. 1).
Likewise, Lardelli et al. discloses a device which is analogous art at least because is reasonably pertinent to guiding fluid toward a collection tray (tray 11) and Lardelli et al. teaches angled surfaces (on beverage dispenser 2, Fig. 3 and on lid 13, Fig. 1) to guide fluid toward the collection tray.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the claimed invention of ‘894 wherein the device includes a channel to pass liquid runoff to the tray.
Claim 15 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 10 and 23 of copending Application No. 18/423894 hereinafter “’894” and in view of Cocchi et al. (Applicant provided EP 2062481B1) hereinafter “Cocchi II” and Grampassi (US 8887522) hereinafter “Grampassi II”.
Regarding claim 15, ‘894 does not claim a baffle.
However, Cocchi II teaches an internal baffle (projections 26) configured to direct slush flow in the mixing vessel toward the dasher (para. [0031]), and wherein the at least one internal baffle comprises at least one of: …..a side baffle extending parallel to a primary axis of the dasher (Fig. 1 and Fig. 7) and Grampassi II teaches wherein a mixing vessel comprises at least one internal baffle (wall 37, Fig. 2 is substantially similar to Applicant’s baffle 107, see Applicant’s Figs. 13A, 13C, and 14A) configured to direct slush flow in the mixing vessel toward the dasher (helix mixing device 3, col. 5, lines 33-37), and wherein the at least one internal baffle comprises at least one of: a front baffle extending perpendicular to the primary axis of the dasher (wall 37, Fig. 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the claimed invention of ‘894 to include a side baffle and/or a front baffle.
Claims 16-17 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 10 and 23 of copending Application No. 18/423894 hereinafter “’894” in view of Cocchi et al. (Applicant provided EP 2062481B1) hereinafter “Cocchi II” and Grampassi (US 8887522) hereinafter “Grampassi II” as applied to claim 15 above and in further view of Applicant provided TW 161842 hereinafter “TW ‘842” or Hollander et al. (US 20040056053).
Regarding claims 16-17, ‘894 does not claim an indentation or a vertical protrusion.
However, TW ‘842 teaches a device which is analogous art at least because it is reasonably pertinent to the problem of selecting external features for vessels and TW ‘842 discloses a vessel (“box”, page 1) having an indentation on an exterior of the vessel and a vertical protrusion (shown above for claim 16 in the 35 U.S.C. 103 section). Likewise, Hollander et al. teaches a device which is analogous art at least because it is reasonably pertinent to the problem of selecting features of vessels (cylindrical body 12) and Hollander et al. teaches an indentation on the exterior surface and a vertical protrusion (shown above for claim 16 in the 35 U.S.C. 103 section).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the claimed invention of ‘894 to include an indentation on the exterior of the mixing vessel corresponding to the front baffle and wherein a vertical protrusion extends from a front surface of the mixing vessel above a front edge of the indentation.
Claims 18 and 20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 10 and 23 of copending Application No. 18/423894 hereinafter “’894” and in view of Ugolini (US 20130152620) and Li (Applicant provided CN 217284664U).
Regarding claims 18 and 20, ‘894 does not claim a pour-in opening with a surface that inclines.
However, Ugolini discloses a device for making a drink (Abstract) and further teaches a direct pour-in opening (top opening 13, Fig. 2) wherein the pour-in opening is positioned proximate a rear of the mixing vessel (as shown above for claim 20 in the 35 U.S.C. 103 section) and Li teaches pour-in opening comprising an aperture configured to allow liquid flow into an interior chamber of the mixing vessel, and the pour-in opening further comprising a surface that inclines with respect to a primary axis of the dasher (Fig. 3). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the claimed invention of ‘894 to include a pour-in opening proximate a rear of the mixing vessel and including an inclined surface with respect to the primary axis of the dasher.
Claim 19 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 10 and 23 of copending Application No. 18/423894 hereinafter “’894” in view of Ugolini (US 20130152620) and Li (Applicant provided CN 217284664U) as applied to claim 18 above and in further view of Zani (US 4332539).
Regarding claim 19, ‘894 does not claim the aperture is configured as a slot having a width dimensioned to prevent passage of a human finger.
However, Zani discloses a device which is analogous art at least because it is reasonably pertinent to the problem of feeding ingredients through an opening serving as a machine guard and Zani further teaches a slot (slot 46) and Zani further teaches sizing the slot to prevent passage of a finger (col. 5, lines 23-27). Therefore, it would have been obvious to have modified the claimed invention of ‘894 wherein the aperture is a slot with a width dimensioned to prevent passage of a human finger.
Claims 1, 6, 10, 14, 18 and 20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 18, 22-25, and 29-30 of copending Application No. 19/342182 hereinafter “’182”.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all of the claimed elements and features of claims 1, 10 and 14 of the instant application are claimed in claims 18, 22-25 and 29-30 of ‘182 and where terminology differs in ‘182, the terms are deemed to meet the limitation of the instant claims. For example, a coupling mechanism, cooling circuit and rear end of the instant claims is deemed to be met by a locking portion, an evaporator, and distal end respectively, as recited in claim 12 of ‘182.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim 11 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 18, 22-25, and 29-30 of copending Application No. 19/342182 hereinafter “’182” and in view of Ugolini (US 20130152620), Sathyanarayan et al. (WO 2023286000A1) and Lardelli et al. (US 9198536).
Regarding claim 11, ‘182 does not claim a channel to pass liquid runoff to the tray.
However, Ugolini teaches a channel comprising an angled surface formed on an upper edge of the housing above the tray and below the mixing vessel such that the channel is defined between an outer surface of the mixing vessel and an upper edge of the housing and which would guide condensation toward the tray (as shown above for claim 11 in the 35 U.S.C. 103 section).
Otherwise, Sathyanarayan et al. discloses a device which is analogous art at least because is pertinent to guiding condensation (Abstract) toward a collection tray (tray 80) and Sathyanarayan et al. teaches using angled surfaces (tray 20) to guide condensation toward the collection tray (tray 80, Fig. 1).
Likewise, Lardelli et al. discloses a device which is analogous art at least because it is reasonably pertinent to guiding fluid toward a collection tray (tray 11) and Lardelli et al. teaches angled surfaces (on beverage dispenser 2, Fig. 3 and on lid 13, Fig. 1) to guide fluid toward the collection tray.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the claimed invention of ‘182 wherein the device includes a channel to pass liquid runoff to the tray
Claim 19 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 18, 22-25, and 29-30 of copending Application No. 19/342182 hereinafter “’182” as applied to claim 18 above and in view of Zani (US 4332539).
Regarding claim 19, ‘182 does not claim wherein the aperture is configured as a slot having a width dimensioned to prevent passage of a human finger.
However, Zani discloses a device which is analogous art at least because it is reasonably pertinent to the problem of feeding ingredients through an opening serving as a machine guard and Zani further teaches a slot (slot 46) and Zani further teaches sizing the slot to prevent passage of a finger (col. 5, lines 23-27). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the claimed invention of ‘182 wherein the aperture is configured as a slot having a width dimensioned to prevent passage of a human finger.
Claims 1-5 and 7-9 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3-5 and 10-11 of copending Application No. 19/342182 hereinafter “’182”.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all of the claimed elements and features of claims 1-5 and 7-9 of the instant application are claimed in claims 1, 3-5 and 10-11 of ‘182 and where terminology differs in the claims of ‘182, the terms are deemed to meet the limitation of the instant claims. For example, a coupling mechanism and cooling circuit of the instant claims is deemed to be met by a lock rotatable between locked and unlocked positions and an evaporator, respectively, as recited in the claims of ‘182.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim 15 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3-5 and 10-11 of copending Application No. 19/342182 hereinafter “’182” and in view of Cocchi et al. (Applicant provided EP 2062481B1) hereinafter “Cocchi II” and Grampassi (US 8887522) hereinafter “Grampassi II”.
Regarding claim 15, ‘182 does not claim a baffle.
However, Cocchi II teaches an internal baffle (projections 26) configured to direct slush flow in the mixing vessel toward the dasher (para. [0031]), and wherein the at least one internal baffle comprises at least one of: …..a side baffle extending parallel to a primary axis of the dasher (Fig. 1 and Fig. 7) and Grampassi II teaches wherein a mixing vessel comprises at least one internal baffle (wall 37, Fig. 2 is substantially similar to Applicant’s baffle 107, see Applicant’s Figs. 13A, 13C, and 14A) configured to direct slush flow in the mixing vessel toward the dasher (helix mixing device 3, col. 5, lines 33-37), and wherein the at least one internal baffle comprises at least one of: a front baffle extending perpendicular to the primary axis of the dasher (wall 37, Fig. 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the claimed invention of ‘182 to include a side baffle and/or a front baffle.
Claims 16-17 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3-5 and 10-11 of copending Application No. 19/342182 hereinafter “’182” and in view of Cocchi et al. (Applicant provided EP 2062481B1) hereinafter “Cocchi II” and Grampassi (US 8887522) hereinafter “Grampassi II” as applied to claim 15 above and in further view of Applicant provided TW 161842 hereinafter “TW ‘842” or Hollander et al. (US 20040056053).
Regarding claims 16-17, ‘182 does not claim an indentation or a vertical protrusion.
However, TW ‘842 teaches a device which is analogous art at least because it is reasonably pertinent to the problem of selecting external features for vessels and TW ‘842 discloses a vessel (“box”, page 1) having an indentation on an exterior of the vessel and a vertical protrusion (shown above for claim 16 in the 35 U.S.C. 103 section). Likewise, Hollander et al. teaches a device which is analogous art at least because it is reasonably pertinent to the problem of selecting features of vessels (cylindrical body 12) and Hollander et al. teaches an indentation on the exterior surface and a vertical protrusion (shown above for claim 16 in the 35 U.S.C. 103 section).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the claimed invention of ‘182 to include an indentation on the exterior of the mixing vessel corresponding to the front baffle and wherein a vertical protrusion extends from a front surface of the mixing vessel above a front edge of the indentation.
Claims 1, 5 and 14-15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 20-22 and 24-25 of U.S. Patent No. 12,279,629 hereinafter ‘629 in view of Cocchi (US 20160157509).
Regarding claims 1, 5 and 14-15, ‘629 claims the features of claims 1, 5 and 14-15 except that ‘629 does not claim a cooling circuit/evaporator, a coupling mechanism, a sealable mixing vessel opening, or a drive motor. However, these features are taught by Cocchi (Fig. 2, pars. [0004] and [0027]-[0028] and as shown above for claim 1 in the 35 U.S.C. 102 section). Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the claimed invention of ‘629 to include the cooling circuit/evaporator, the coupling mechanism, the sealable mixing vessel opening and the drive motor.
Claim 6 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 20-22 and 24-25 of U.S. Patent No. 12,279,629 hereinafter ‘629 in view of Cocchi (US 20160157509) as applied to claim 1 above and in further view of Grampassi (applicant disclosed WO 2021009788A1).
Regarding claim 6, ‘629 does not claim a temperature sensor.
However, Grampassi discloses a drink machine (para. [01]) and Grampassi teaches an evaporator (para. [04]) and further teaches a temperature sensor positioned in or on the evaporator (para. [51]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the claimed invention of ‘629 wherein the device further comprises a temperature sensor positioned in or on the evaporator.
Claims 7-9 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 20-22 and 24-25 of U.S. Patent No. 12,279,629 hereinafter ‘629 in view of Cocchi (US 20160157509) as applied to claim 1 above and in further view of view of Bond (US 20080098765A1).
Regarding claim 7, ‘629 does not claim protrusions.
However, Cocchi discloses the mixing vessel further comprises at least one first protrusion (on the lid of the mixing vessel) configured to engage with the coupling mechanism (as shown above for claim 7 in the 35 U.S.C. 103 section); Otherwise, Bond teaches a device for making drinks (Abstract) and further teaches a coupling mechanism (posts 24 and receiving holes, para. [0017]) and wherein the mixing vessel comprises at least one first protrusion (a post 24) configured to engage with the coupling mechanism (engages with receiving holes, para. [0017], as shown above for claim 7 in the 35 U.S.C. 103 section). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the claimed invention of ‘629 wherein the coupling mechanism (locking means 12) is substituted for or additionally comprises the coupling mechanism of Bond (para. [0017]) such that the mixing vessel further comprises at least one first protrusion configured to engage with the coupling mechanism.
Regarding claims 8-9, ‘629 does not claim second and third protrusions.
However, Bond further teaches wherein the mixing vessel further comprises at least one second protrusion (Fig. 3, shown above for claim 7) configured to contact an upper edge of the housing (para. [0017]) and guide the mixing vessel into alignment with the coupling mechanism (multiple protrusions allow the user to correctly align the mixing vessel, Bond, Fig. 3) and at least one third protrusion (Fig. 3, shown above for claim 7) configured to be received within a slot below the upper edge of the housing (the upper edge, shown above for claim 7, has a receiving slot: hole or slit, Bond, para. [0017]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the claimed invention of ‘629 wherein the mixing vessel includes second and third protrusions.
Claim 10 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 20-22 and 24-25 of U.S. Patent No. 12,279,629 hereinafter ‘629 in view of Cocchi (US 20160157509) as applied to claim 1 above and in further view of Ugolini (US 20130152620).
Regarding claim 10, ‘629 does not claim a tray.
However, Ugolini teaches a device for making a drink (beverages, Abstract) and further teaches a tray (channel 104) positioned below a portion of the mixing vessel (Fig. 2). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the claimed invention of ‘629 by including a tray.
Claim 11 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 20-22 and 24-25 of U.S. Patent No. 12,279,629 hereinafter ‘629 in view of Cocchi (US 20160157509) and Ugolini (US 20130152620) as applied to claim 10 above and in further view of Sathyanarayan et al. (attached WO 2023286000A1) and Lardelli et al. (US 9198536).
Regarding claim 11, ‘629 does not claim a tray or channel.
However, Ugolini who is relied upon as discussed in claim 10 above to teach a tray (tray/channel 104), further teaches a channel comprising an angled surface formed on an upper edge of the housing above the tray and below the mixing vessel such that the channel is defined between an outer surface of the mixing vessel and an upper edge of the housing and which would guide condensation toward the tray (as shown above for claim 11 in the 35 U.S.C. 103 section). Otherwise, Sathyanarayan et al. discloses a device which is analogous art at least because it is pertinent to guiding condensation (Abstract) toward a collection tray (tray 80) and Sathyanarayan et al. teaches using angled surfaces (tray 20) to guide condensation toward the collection tray (tray 80, Fig. 1). Likewise, Lardelli et al. discloses a device which is analogous art at least because it is reasonably pertinent to guiding fluid toward a collection tray (tray 11) and Lardelli et al. teaches angled surfaces (on beverage dispenser 2, Fig. 3 and on lid 13, Fig. 1) to guide fluid toward the collection tray.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the claimed invention of ‘629 to include a channel.
Claim 12 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 20-22 and 24-25 of U.S. Patent No. 12,279,629 hereinafter ‘629 in view of Cocchi (US 20160157509) as applied to claim 1 above and in further view of Versteeg (US 20170030467).
Regarding claim 12, ‘629 does not claim a seal.
However, Cocchi discloses the device further comprises a seal (ring seal 20) and Versteeg teaches a device for making drinks (frozen product, Abstract) and further teaches the use of flexible material for a seal (para. [0092]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the claimed invention of ‘629 wherein the device includes a flexible seal.
Claim 13 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 20-22 and 24-25 of U.S. Patent No. 12,279,629 hereinafter ‘629 in view of Cocchi (US 20160157509) and Versteeg (US 20170030467) as applied to claim 12 above and in further view of Midden (US 7152765) and Ugolini (US 20130152620).
Regarding claim 13, Cocchi does not expressly disclose a face seal portion and also a radial seal portion.
However, Midden teaches a seal comprising a face seal portion configured to interface between a surface of a mixing vessel and a surface of a housing (condenser 40 being connected to and part of housing), and wherein the seal further comprises a radial seal portion (Fig. 18) configured to extend into and contact a perimeter of an opening in the mixing vessel (hopper 42, as shown above for claim 13 in the 35 U.S.C. 103 section). Likewise, Ugolini teaches wherein a seal comprises a face seal portion configured to interface between a surface of the mixing vessel and a surface of the housing, and wherein the seal further comprises a radial seal portion configured to extend into and contact a perimeter of an opening (Fig. 2, as shown above for claim 11 in the 35 U.S.C. 103 section). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the claimed invention of ‘629 wherein the seal includes a face seal portion and a radial seal portion.
Claims 16-17 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 20-22 and 24-25 of U.S. Patent No. 12,279,629 hereinafter ‘629 in view of Cocchi (US 20160157509) as applied to claim 15 above and in further view of Applicant provided TW 161842 hereinafter “TW ‘842” or Hollander et al. (US 20040056053).
Regarding claims 16-17, ‘629 does not claim an indentation corresponding to the front baffle.
However, TW ‘842 or Hollander et al. teach an indentation (shown above for claim 16 in the 35 U.S.C. 103 section). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the claimed invention of ‘629 wherein the front baffle corresponds to an indentation.
Claims 18 and 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 20-22 and 24-25 of U.S. Patent No. 12,279,629 hereinafter ‘629 in view of Cocchi (US 20160157509) as applied to claim 1 above and in further view of Ugolini (US 20130152620) and Li (Applicant provided CN 217284664U).
Regarding claims 18 and 20, ‘629 does not claim a pour-in opening with a surface that inclines.
However, Ugolini discloses a device for making a drink (Abstract) and further teaches a direct pour-in opening (top opening 13, Fig. 2) wherein the pour-in opening is positioned proximate a rear of the mixing vessel (as shown above for claim 20 in the 35 U.S.C. 103 section) and Li teaches a pour-in opening comprising an aperture configured to allow liquid flow into an interior chamber of the mixing vessel, and the pour-in opening further comprising a surface that inclines with respect to a primary axis of the dasher (Fig. 3). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the claimed invention of ‘629 to include a pour-in opening proximate a rear of the mixing vessel and including an inclined surface with respect to the primary axis of the dasher.
Claim 19 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 20-22 and 24-25 of U.S. Patent No. 12,279,629 hereinafter ‘629 in view of Cocchi (US 20160157509), Ugolini (US 20130152620) and Li (Applicant provided CN 217284664U) as applied to claim 18 above and in further view of Zani (US 4332539).
Regarding claim 19, ‘629 does not claim wherein the aperture is configured as a slot having a width dimensioned to prevent passage of a human finger.
However, Zani discloses a device which is analogous art at least because it is reasonably pertinent to the problem of feeding ingredients through an opening serving as a machine guard and Zani further teaches a slot (slot 46) and Zani further teaches sizing the slot to prevent passage of a finger (col. 5, lines 23-27). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the claimed invention of ‘629 wherein the aperture is configured as a slot having a width dimensioned to prevent passage of a human finger.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-4 stand rejected under non-statutory double patenting as discussed above (see above rejections based on copending applications 18/423,894 and 19/342182), but would be allowable upon filing of terminal disclaimers (see Double Patenting section above) and 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 prior art of record discloses devices for making drinks having a housing, mixing vessels, a dasher in the mixing vessel powered by a motor, an evaporator, and coupling mechanisms configured to releasably retain the mixing vessel against the housing.
However, the prior art of record did not reasonably disclose, teach or otherwise suggest a device for making drinks having a housing, a mixing vessel, a dasher received through an opening in the mixing vessel and powered by a motor, a cooling circuit in the housing for cooling a drink in the mixing vessel, a coupling mechanism configured to releasably retain the mixing vessel against the housing in an engaged position where the mixing vessel is configured to engage the housing to seal the opening in the mixing vessel and wherein the coupling mechanism comprises at least one cam.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICK M MCCARTY whose telephone number is (571)272-4398. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 9:00 AM - 5:00 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, 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.
/P.M.M./Examiner, Art Unit 1774
/CLAIRE X WANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1774