DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claim 17 is objected to. Regarding claim 17, it is suggested that “second axial” be amended to “second axial end” in order to enhance the clarity of the claim.
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 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 (b) for lacking antecedent basis since “the optical sensor” is not previously referred to in the claim, or any preceding claim. Correction/clarification is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 17, 18, 19, 24, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Fisher (U.S. Publication 2021/0274805).
Regarding claim 1, Fisher teaches a mixed-use refrigeration machine (figure 11, paragraph 6 teaches rapidly cooling ingredients which is considered reading on a refrigeration machine since the cooled ingredients are cooler than the ambient temperature) for preparing an edible product (the materials are considered intended use, however paragraph 6 teaches ice cream) comprising: a cooling/mixing vessel (item 3) defining a vessel chamber (volume of space inside item 3 is considered reading on a chamber) for receiving ingredients for producing the edible product and an agitator rotatably disposed in the vessel chamber for mixing the ingredients (items 2 are considered reading on beaters); a refrigeration system associated with the cooling/mixing vessel to refrigerate the ingredients (item 1110 and 1125 are considered reading on a refrigeration system which cools the materials in item 3); a mixing motor coupled to the agitator to rotate the agitator (figure 5 beater motor 13); a temperature sensor operatively arranged to measure a temperature of the ingredients (paragraph 57 teaches at thermocouple for measuring ingredients as they are being mixed and cooled); a current sensor configured to measure operation of the mixing motor (paragraph 57 teaches a sensor 520 for measuring the current of motor 13); and an electronic controller operatively associated with the refrigeration system and the mixing motor (figure 5 item 510 control circuit which is operatively associated with item 13) and in communication with the temperature sensor and the current sensor (item 510 is communication with nozzle item 570, paragraph 57 teaches measuring the temperature of the ingredients, paragraph 57 teaches multiple sensors 520 that are processed using by the control circuit), the electronic controller programmed to regulate operation of the mixed-use refrigeration machine in a torque mode in response to measurements from the current sensor (paragraph 57 teaches measuring the current of the motor to measure the torque needed to drive the motor which is considered a torque mode, paragraph 11 teaches the controller mixes material based on the viscosity of ingredients which would inherently be based on the torque and current) and in a temperature mode in response to measurements from the temperature sensor (paragraph 73 teaches a freezing step in which the valve is controlled to achieve the desired temperature drop which is considered reading on a temperature mode).
Regarding claim 2, Fisher teaches further comprising a control panel (figure 5 panel controls 580) operatively associated with the electronic controller (item 580 is shown as being operatively associated with the control circuit item 510), the control panel adapted to receive a user input causing the electronic controller to operate in one of the torque mode and the temperature mode (paragraph 65 teaches which of the panels controls have been activating and starting and stopping the motor 13 which is considered part of the torque mode, and also teaches controlling valve 560 which is considered part of the temperature mode).
Regarding claim 3, Fisher teaches wherein during the torque mode, the electronic controller compares a current draw of the mixing motor measured by the current sensor (paragraph 66 teaches measuring current draw of the motor) with a threshold current that is indicative of a high viscosity associated with the ingredients (paragraph 74 teaches the viscosity is measured by monitoring the current consumed by the motor).
Regarding claim 4, Fisher teaches wherein in response to the current draw matching or exceeding the current threshold, the electronic controller switches to regulate operation of the mixed-use refrigeration machine in a temperature maintenance mode that is responsive to measurements from the temperature sensor (paragraph 73 teaches coolant is added until a desired temperature drop is achieved, achieving the desired temperature is considered a maintenance mode until the product is served).
Regarding claim 5, Fisher teaches wherein during the temperature maintenance mode, the electronic controller is configured to: compares the temperature measurements with a temperature threshold corresponding to the high viscosity of the ingredients (paragraph 52 teaches dosing liquid nitrogen at each threshold within each viscosity level’s settings, paragraph 55 teaches freezing the dessert to the desired consistency temperature and/or texture which would inherently require the comparing the temperature of the food product to the desired temperature); and activate and deactivate the refrigeration system responsively to the comparison of temperature measurements and the temperature threshold (paragraph 55 teaches the automatic cycle can freeze the frozen dessert to the desired temperature which would inherently require comparing the current temperature to the desired temperature).
Regarding claim 6, Fisher teaches wherein during the temperature mode the electronic controller is configured to compare measurements from the temperature sensor with a liquid temperature threshold indicative of a user input (paragraph 58 teaches unfrozen ice cream, which is considered inherently requiring a liquid temperature threshold, paragraph 55 teaches the automatic cycle can freeze the frozen dessert to the desired temperature which would inherently require comparing the current temperature to the desired temperature).
Regarding claim 7, Fisher teaches wherein in response to the temperature measurements less than or equal to the liquid temperature threshold, the electronic controller switches to regulate operation of the mixed-use refrigeration machine in a temperature maintenance mode (paragraph 63 teaches coolant is added until a desired temperature drop is received, which would inherently have a temperature measurement less than the liquid temperature of the unfrozen ice cream in paragraph 58).
Regarding claim 8, Fisher teaches wherein during the temperature maintenance mode, the electronic controller is configured to: compares the temperature measurements with the temperature threshold (paragraph 73 teaches achieving a desired temperature which would inherently require comparing the actual temperature of the materials being mixed to a desired temperature); and activate and deactivate the refrigeration system responsively to the comparison of temperature measurements and the temperature threshold (paragraph 73 teaches opening and closing the valve providing liquid nitrogen coolant, the open valve configuration is considered activating the refrigeration system, closing the valve is considered deactivating the refrigeration system).
Regarding claim 10, Fisher teaches wherein the electronic controller is configured to determine the ingredients are being dispensed from the vessel chamber and respond by increasing a speed of the mixing motor (paragraph 51 teaches a variation of speed, a printed circuit board with wiring connections to control the speed of the beaters and the direction of the beaters which would inherently require slowing down and then speeding up the beaters while changing the rotational direction).
Regarding claim 17, Fisher teaches wherein the cooling/mixing vessel further defines a vessel axis extending between a first axial end and a second axial (an axis extending vertically through the vessel can be drawn extending between a top axial end and a bottom axial end of item 3), and the agitator includes at least one stirring blade spirally disposed about an agitator shaft (item 2 is shown as a spiral blade disposed about an agitator shaft) coaxially aligned with the vessel axis (each of item 2 are offset an coaxial to an axis that can extend vertically through the center of item 3), the at least one stirring blade and the agitator shaft radially offset from each other to define an agitator void for movement of the ingredients parallel to the vessel axis (a portion of the spiral blade is offset from the shaft of item 2 creating a void where material can move parallel to a central axis of item 3).
Regarding claim 18, Fisher teaches method of preparing low-temperature edible products (paragraph 1 ice cream) using a mixed-use refrigeration machine (figure 11) comprising: receiving a user input indicative of a desired edible product (paragraph 51 teaches a control panel and a user to select between various recipes); receiving ingredients into a cooling/mixing vessel of the mixed-use refrigeration machine (materials are placed in item 3); mixing the ingredients in the cooling/mixing vessel with an agitator (item 2) coupled to a mixing motor (figure 5, beater motor 13); cooling the ingredients in the cooling/mixing vessel with a refrigeration system operative associated with the cool/mixing vessel (item 1110, see paragraph 44 which teaches providing liquid nitrogen to freeze the ingredients); and in response to the user input, operating the cooling/mixing vessel in one of a torque mode responsive to operation of the mixing motor (paragraph 57 teaches measuring the current of the motor to measure the torque needed to drive the motor which is considered a torque mode, paragraph 11 teaches the controller mixes material based on the viscosity of ingredients which would inherently be based on the torque and current) and a temperature mode responsive to temperature measurements of the ingredients (paragraph 73 teaches a freezing step in which the valve is controlled to achieve the desired temperature drop which is considered reading on a temperature mode).
Regarding claim 19, Fisher teaches further comprising, during the torque mode, comparing a current draw of the mixing motor with a threshold current that is indicative of a high viscosity associated with the ingredients (paragraph 66 teaches measuring the current drawn by the motor, paragraph 74 teaches using current of the motor to measure viscosity) and maintaining a temperature of the ingredients in response to the current draw matching or exceeding the current threshold (paragraph 74 teaches if the viscosity is measured, then delivery of the coolant can be controlled responsive to this movement, and paragraph 73 teaches achieving the desired temperature which is considered maintaining the temperature of the finished product).
Regarding claim 24, Fisher teaches further comprising modulating the rotation of the mixing motor by reversing direction (paragraph 16 teaches the beater can be rotated either clockwise or counter clockwise and in different directions for different portions of the mixing process).
Regarding claim 25, Fisher teaches a mixed-use refrigeration machine (figure 11) for preparing edible products (the materials are considered intended use) comprising: a user-input unit for receiving a user input indicative of a desired edible product (item 7 control panel); a vessel defining a vessel chamber for receiving ingredients (item 3, the space inside item 3 is considered reading on a chamber) and an agitator rotatably disposed in the vessel chamber for mixing the ingredients (item 2); a refrigeration system associated with the cooling/mixing vessel to refrigerate the ingredients (paragraph 76 liquid nitrogen dosing system item 1110); a motor coupled to the agitator to rotate the agitator (figure 5, beater motor 13); and an electronic controller operatively associated with the motor and the refrigeration system and programmed to control the motor and the refrigeration system in response to the user input ((paragraph 56 teaches a control circuit 510 which controls the beater motor and the valve providing liquid nitrogen based on the control panel 7), to selectively form the desired edible product in a first mode and form the desired edible product in a second mode according to the user input (paragraph 61 teaches different recipes), wherein the desired edible product in the first mode includes an ice cream product and the desired edible product (paragraph 1 ice cream) in the second mode includes a liquid product (paragraph 44 teaches a semi-frozen mixture which is considered comprising a semi liquid product).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 15, 16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fisher (U.S. Publication 2021/0274805).
Regarding claim 15, Fisher teaches the cooling mixing vessel and the refrigeration system are operatively arranged for external cooling (item 1110 is external to item 3), and the refrigeration system includes a refrigerant conduit located externally on a vessel barrel (item 1125 conduit is located externally on the container of item 1110 which is considered reading on a vessel barrel). Regarding claim 15, Fisher is silent to the surrounding shape. Regarding claim 15, absent any unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the shape of the refrigeration machine in order to make the machine more compact since it is well settled that it is an obvious matter of design choice to change the general shape or size of a known element in the absence of a disclosed non-obvious advantage associated with the change. Gardner vs. TEC Systems Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 1349-50 (Fed. Cir. 1984); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 555 (CCPA 1975); In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 672 (CCPA 1966).
Regarding claim 16, Fisher teaches wherein the cooling/mixing vessel includes a thawing gap proximate a dispensing outlet of the vessel barrel (item 1110 is considered having a thawing gap at the bottom most portion of item 1125 which is separated from item 3), the thawing gap characterized by the absence of the refrigerant conduit (the gap between item 1125 and item 3 is considered an absence of the refrigerant conduit).
Regarding claim 20, Fisher teaches and modulating the refrigeration system responsively to comparing the temperature measurements and a temperature threshold corresponding to the high viscosity of the ingredients (paragraph 52 teaches dosing liquid nitrogen at each threshold within each viscosity level’s settings,). Regarding claim 20, Fisher is silent to the specific speed. Regarding claim 20, absent any unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the speed of the motor to obtain the desired mixed product since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fisher (U.S. Publication 2021/0274805) in view of Nevarez (U.S. Publication 2010/0139493).
Fisher is silent to the language of claim 9. Regarding claim 9, Nevarez teaches where the mixing motor is a variable speed motor (paragraph 37 teaches a variable speed motor) and the electronic controller is configured to operate the mixing motor at different speeds (paragraph 205 teaches the spindle speed for each step in the mixing profile which is inherently a function of the motor speed). Regarding claim 9, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the mixer of Fisher with the variable speed motor of Nevarez in order to better control the mixing operation. Regarding claim 9, absent any unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the speed of the motor to obtain the desired mixed product since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Claims 11, 12, 21, and 22, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fisher (U.S. Publication 2021/0274805) in view of Deshpande (U.S. Publication 2020/0312078).
Fisher is silent to the language of claim 11. Regarding clam 11, Desphande teaches further comprising a dispensing apparatus mounted with respect to the cooling/mixing vessel to dispense the ingredients from the vessel chamber (paragraph 6 teaches dispensing a beverage from a temperature regulated compartment), the dispensing apparatus associated with a handle for controlling dispensing (paragraph 63 teaches using a handle as part of the user interface for the dispenser). Regarding claim 11, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the temperature-controlled mixer of Fisher with the dispenser configuration of Desphande in order to allow for easier delivery of the final mixed product.
Fisher is silent to the language of claim 12. Regarding claim 12, Desphande teaches further comprising an optical sensor configured to detect operation of the handle (paragraph 63 teaches the user interface includes a handle, paragraph 102 teaches communication interface including an optical signal which is considered inherently requiring an optical sensor which communicates with the computer system which is used in dispensing the beverage). Regarding claim 12, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the temperature-controlled mixer of Fisher with the dispenser configuration of Desphande in order to allow for easier delivery of the final mixed product.
Regarding claim 21, Fisher is silent to the specific speed and the dispenser. Regarding clam 21, Desphande teaches dispensing the ingredients from the vessel chamber (paragraph 6 teaches dispensing a beverage). Regarding claim 21, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the temperature-controlled mixer of Fisher with the dispenser configuration of Desphande in order to allow for easier delivery of the final mixed product. Regarding claim 21, absent any unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the speed of the motor to obtain the desired mixed product since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 22, Fisher is silent to step of determining whether the ingredients are being dispensed and increasing the speed of the mixing motor. Regarding claim 22, Desphande teaches determining whether the ingredients are being dispensed. Regarding claim 22, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the temperature-controlled mixer of Fisher with the dispenser configuration of Desphande in order to allow for easier delivery of the final mixed product. Regarding claim 22, absent any unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the speed of the motor to obtain the desired mixed product since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14 and 23 are 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.
Regarding claim 14, the prior art does not teach or fairly suggest the combination of a mixed-use refrigeration machine with the combination of the handle, mounting clamp, and twist lock with tabs.
Regarding claim 23, the prior art does not teach or fairly suggest the method including directing light to a handle of the dispensing apparatus and receiving the light by an optical sensor reflected by the handle.
Claim 13 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 13, the prior art does not teach or fairly suggest the combination of a mixed-use refrigeration machine with the combination of the handle optical sensor, wherein the optical sensor is disposed on the exterior housing, and the optical sensor comprising an infrared generator to direct light toward the handle.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANSHU BHATIA whose telephone number is (571)270-7628. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 11 a.m. to 7:30 p.m..
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.
/ANSHU BHATIA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1774
Prosecution Insights