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 .
Status
This Office Action is in response to the remarks and amendments filed on 09/10/2026.
The drawing objection is withdrawn and the 35 U.S.C. 112f claim interpretation is maintained. Claims 1-20 remain pending for consideration on the merits.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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 release mechanism" in claims 8-9.
a detector device" in claims 17-18.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitations: the release mechanism 220 can be a spring-loaded device actuated by hand to latch and release the liquid holding tray 134 to the housing cabinet, the first detector device 560 can be an electrical contact sensor.
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.
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 § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fonte et al (US 11279609 B2, hereinafter Fonte) in view of Sherman (US 20160270423 A1, hereinafter Sherman).
Regarding claim 1, Fonte teaches a refrigeration machine (machine 100) for preparing iced edibles (as described in the abstract) comprising: a housing cabinet (housing 104) defining a cabinet interior (figure 1b); a storage device (pod-machine interface 106) for storing ingredients; an evaporator drum (evaporator 108) rotatably disposed in the cabinet interior (as shown on figure 1b) and configured to contact and freeze the ingredients (abstract and as shown on figure 3a); and a blade assembly (paddle 160) mounted to the housing cabinet proximate to the evaporator drum (as shown on figure 3a), the blade assembly (paddle 160) being slidably detachable from the housing cabinet and including a scrapping blade (blades 230) adapted to scrape the ingredients frozen to the evaporator drum (blades 230 are helical blades shaped to churn the contents of the pod 150 and to remove ingredients that adhere to inner surface of the body 158 of the pod 150, col 20 lines 20-22).
Fonte teaches the invention as described above but fail to teach a holding tray removably installed in the cabinet interior and accessibly disposed with respect to the evaporator drum, the holding tray adapted to receive the ingredients from the storage device.
However, Sherman teaches a holding tray (tray 30) removably installed in the cabinet interior (paragraph 0024) and accessibly disposed with respect to the evaporator drum (engine 26 and element 28), the holding tray (tray 30) adapted to receive the ingredients from the storage device (paragraph 0024).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the machine in the teachings of Fonte to include a holding tray removably installed in the cabinet interior and accessibly disposed with respect to the evaporator drum, the holding tray adapted to receive the ingredients from the storage device in view of the teachings of Sherman in order to yield the predictable result of using of a tray to be contemplated to transfer heat efficiently and rapidly.
Further, it is understood, claim 1 includes an intended use recitation, for example “…configured to...”. The applicant is reminded that a recitation with respect to the manner which a claimed apparatus is intended to be does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the structural limitations of the claims, as is the case here. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, the claims are directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function.
Regarding claim 2, the combined teachings teach wherein the blade assembly (paddle 160 of Fonte) includes a blade holder (central stem 228 of Fonte) and the blade (blades 230 of Fonte) is fixedly attached to the blade holder (figure 10 of Fonte).
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fonte as modified by Sherman, as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Anand et al (EP 3928631 B1, hereinafter Anand).
Regarding claim 3, the combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to teach wherein the housing cabinet further comprises a housing liner assembly removably disposed in the cabinet interior.
However, Anand teaches wherein the housing cabinet (outer housing 14) further comprises a housing liner (inner liner 16) assembly removably disposed in the cabinet interior (as shown on figure 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the machine in the combined teachings to include wherein the housing cabinet further comprises a housing liner assembly removably disposed in the cabinet interior in view of the teachings of Anand in order to yield the predictable result of defining a food-product receiving cavity.
Regarding claim 4, the combined teachings teach wherein the blade assembly (mixing arms 46a/46b of Anand) is slidably attached (remove the dasher 34 from the food-product receiving cavity 20, paragraph 0021 of Anand) to the housing liner assembly (inner liner 16 of Anand) or the housing cabinet by a wedge-lock arrangement.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fonte as modified by Sherman and Anand, as applied to claim 4 above, and in further view of Devaney et al (ES 2956310 T3, hereinafter Devaney).
Regarding claim 5, the combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to teach wherein the housing liner assembly or the housing cabinet includes one or more slots for receiving respective flanges of the blade assembly.
However, Devaney teaches wherein the housing liner assembly or the housing cabinet (pods 150, as shown on figure 3a) includes one or more slots (at least one vane has slots in an outer edge, paragraph 0034) for receiving respective flanges of the blade assembly (at least one vane has slots in an outer edge, the slots being sized to receive a flange of the open end of the body, paragraph 0034).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the machine in the combined teachings to include wherein the housing liner assembly or the housing cabinet includes one or more slots for receiving respective flanges of the blade assembly in view of the teachings of Devaney in order to yield the predictable result of allowing insertion of the scraper into the interior cavity of the body.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fonte as modified by Sherman and Anand, as applied to claim 3 above, and in further view of Cortese (US 20050103030 A1, hereinafter Cortese).
Regarding claim 6, the combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to teach wherein the housing liner assembly and the liquid holding tray cooperatively provide a first hole and a second hole laterally spaced apart from each other and adapted to encircle one or more shafts of the evaporator drum.
However, Cortese teaches wherein the housing liner assembly (cover 3) and the liquid holding tray (base plate 7) cooperatively provide a first hole (hole protruding from scraping member 15, as shown on figure 4) and a second hole (protruding from protrusion 20, figure 4) laterally spaced apart from each other (figure 4) and adapted to encircle one or more shafts (shaft 13) of the evaporator drum (coil 12).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the machine in the combined teachings to include wherein the housing liner assembly and the liquid holding tray cooperatively provide a first hole and a second hole laterally spaced apart from each other and adapted to encircle one or more shafts of the evaporator drum in view of the teachings of Cortese in order to yield the predictable result of allowing a rotating shaft to which removing means are mounted to remove by skimming the crystals of iced solution formed on the surface of the cooling drum.
Further, it is understood, claim 6 includes an intended use recitation, for example “…adapted to...”. The applicant is reminded that a recitation with respect to the manner which a claimed apparatus is intended to be does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the structural limitations of the claims, as is the case here. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, the claims are directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fonte as modified by Sherman, Anand and Cortese, as applied to claim 3 above, and in further view of An et al (WO 2017116111 A1, hereinafter An).
Regarding claim 7, the combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to teach further comprising a first seal assembly associated with the first hole and a first shaft of the evaporator drum and a second seal assembly associated with the second hole and a second shaft of the evaporator drum.
However, An teaches further comprising a first seal assembly (cover 116c forming sealed space C, paragraph) associated with the first hole (lower exiting portion of shaft 200, figures 4-5) and a first shaft of the evaporator drum (lower shaft portion from shaft 200, figure 5)and a second seal assembly (cover 116b forming sealed space C, paragraph) associated with the second hole (upper exiting portion of shaft 200, figures 4-5) and a second shaft of the evaporator drum (upper shaft portion from shaft 200, figure 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the machine in the teachings of Fonte to include further comprising a first seal assembly associated with the first hole and a first shaft of the evaporator drum and a second seal assembly associated with the second hole and a second shaft of the evaporator drum in view of the teachings of An in order to yield the predictable result of minimizing the heat exchange between the outside air and the ice-making refrigerant tube.
Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fonte as modified by Sherman and Anand, as applied to claim 3 above, and in further view of Myerly (US 5823675 A, hereinafter Myerly).
Regarding claim 8, the combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to teach wherein the liquid holding tray comprises a release mechanism to releasably latch the liquid holding tray to the housing liner assembly or the housing cabinet.
However, Myerly teaches wherein the liquid holding tray (vessel 30) comprises a release mechanism (release button 14) to releasably latch the liquid holding tray (vessel 30) to the housing liner assembly or the housing cabinet (to release the vessel 30 from housing 10, release button 14 is pressed, col 7 lines 50-51).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the machine in the combined teachings to include wherein the liquid holding tray comprises a release mechanism to releasably latch the liquid holding tray to the housing liner assembly or the housing cabinet in view of the teachings of Myerly in order to yield the predictable result of removing the vessel from the housing.
Regarding claim 9, the combined teachings teach wherein the release mechanism (release button 14 of Myerly) includes an elastic element (leaf springs 48 of Myerly) arranged to urge a securing tab (latch 15 of Myerly) to engage in the housing liner assembly or the housing cabinet (when vessel 30 has been inserted far enough into housing 10, latch 15, shown in FIG. 3, engages one of a plurality of detents 46 defined in the outer wall 42 of vessel 30, col 7 lines 47-49 of Myerly).
Regarding claim 10, the combined teachings teach wherein the housing liner assembly (within housing 10, figure 3 of Myerly) defines a guide slot (detents 46 of Myerly) that slidably receives a guide pin (latch 15 of Myerly) located on the liquid holding tray during installation (when vessel 30 has been inserted far enough into housing 10, latch 15, shown in FIG. 3, engages one of a plurality of detents 46 defined in the outer wall 42 of vessel 30, col 7 lines 47-49 of Myerly).
Claims 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fonte as modified by Sherman, as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Rubin et al (WO 2018170467 A1, hereinafter Rubin).
Regarding claim 11, the combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to teach wherein the liquid holding tray comprises a drain valve mechanism to drain the ingredients.
However, Rubin teaches wherein the liquid holding tray (shell 30) comprises a drain valve mechanism (semi-automatic plunger valve 35) to drain the ingredients.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the machine in the combined teachings to include wherein the liquid holding tray comprises a release mechanism to releasably latch the liquid holding tray to the housing liner assembly or the housing cabinet in view of the teachings of Rubin in order to yield the predictable result of allowing dispensing of the melt.
Regarding claim 12, the combined teachings teach wherein the liquid holding tray (shell 30 of Rubin) includes an inclined surface or a depression (port hole 75 of Rubin) arranged to direct liquid ingredients to the drain valve mechanism (figure 2 of Rubin).
Regarding claim 13, the combined teachings teach wherein the drain valve mechanism (semi-automatic plunger valve 35 of Rubin) comprises: a drain pipe (barrel 65 of Rubin) defining a valve seat (portion of 65 that is inserted into port 75, figure 2 of Rubin) and a valve element (plunger 78 of Rubin) located in the drain pipe (figures 2-4 of Rubin) and movable against and away from the valve seat (the plunger 78 may be biased and/or advanced toward the barrel cap 100, paragraph of Rubin), and a valve actuating handle (finger flange 90 of Rubin) that is selectively set between opened and closed positions of the drain valve mechanism (when pressure is released from the finger flange 90, the plunger 78 advances along the central axis away from the barrel cap 100 and returns to its rest position. During this time, the plunger 78 may close the working communication between the melt 45 and the port hole 75, paragraph of Rubin).
Claims 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fonte as modified by Sherman, as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Lin (CN 117968293 A, hereinafter Lin).
Regarding claim 14, the combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to teach wherein the liquid holding tray comprises an overflow valve.
However, Lin teaches wherein the liquid holding tray (material collecting disc 5) comprises an overflow valve (overflow pipe 501).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the machine in the combined teachings to include wherein the liquid holding tray comprises an overflow valve in view of the teachings of Lin in order to yield the predictable result of allowing the excessive raw material in the material collecting plate can be discharged from the liquid overflow pipe in time.
Regarding claim 15, the combined teachings teach wherein the evaporator drum (ice making roller 2 functioning as an evaporator, paragraph 0014 of Lin) defines an evaporator chamber (inner cavity of the ice-making roller 2, paragraph of Lin) that is in fluid communication with a refrigerant introduction pipe (inner cavity of the ice making roller 2 is also connected with the inlet of the compressor 1001, paragraph 0014 of Lin) and a vapor return pipe (the outlet 303 of the condenser 1002 is connected with the inner cavity of the ice making roller 2, paragraph 0014 of Lin).
Regarding claim 16, the combined teachings teach further comprising a drive motor (driving motor 301 of Lin) operatively disposed to rotate the evaporator drum (a driving motor and a hollow rotating shaft, one end of the hollow rotating shaft is in transmission connection with the output shaft of the driving motor, and the other end of the hollow rotating shaft is connected with the ice making roller, paragraph 0003 of Lin).
Claims 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fonte as modified by Sherman, as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Geng et al (US 20160366906 A1, hereinafter Geng).
Regarding claim 17, the combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to teach further comprising a detector device operatively disposed to detect detachment of the storage device.
However, Geng teaches further comprising a detector device (processor module can detect insertion, paragraph 0058) operatively disposed to detect detachment of the storage device (processor module can detect insertion of a removable bucket into the cooling chamber, paragraph 0058).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the machine in the combined teachings to include further comprising a detector device operatively disposed to detect detachment of the storage device in view of the teachings of Geng in order to yield the predictable result of overcoming the issue of a user prematurely introducing a dessert base mixture into the chamber during pre-cooling phase.
Regarding claim 18, the combined teachings teach further comprising a detector device (mechanical switch or reed switch, paragraph 0297 of Geng) operatively disposed to detect detachment of the blade assembly (via the removal of the removable bucket which includes the mixing paddle, paragraph 0297 of Geng).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fonte as modified by Sherman and Anand, as applied to claim 3 above, and in further view of Liu et al (CN 113475615 A, hereinafter Liu).
Regarding claim 19, the combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to teach wherein the housing liner assembly comprises an inner shell that is detachably insertable into an outer shell.
However, Liu teaches wherein the housing liner assembly (as shown on figure 10) comprises an inner shell (barrel 250) that is detachably insertable into an outer shell (shell 230).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the machine in the combined teachings to include wherein the housing liner assembly comprises an inner shell that is detachably insertable into an outer shell in view of the teachings of Liu in order to yield the predictable result of detachably mounting the barrel to the shell.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fonte as modified by Sherman, as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Dugu (CN 108477375 A, hereinafter Dugu).
Regarding claim 20, the combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to teach further comprising a control panel to interface with an operator, the control panel including a speed dial to adjust rotational speed of the evaporator drum.
However, Dugu teaches further comprising a control panel (display control screen 23) to interface with an operator, the control panel including a speed dial to adjust rotational speed of the evaporator drum (snow shape control method of valve-type snow machine, comprises the following steps: the rotating speed range of the rolling drum evaporator is 10 to 40 r/min, when the rotating speed of the rolling drum evaporator of slower, ice crystal formed by ice skate cutting thicker and larger diameter; when the rotating speed of the roller evaporator is quicker, the ice crystal formed by ice skate cutting thinner, smaller diameter, paragraph 0007).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the machine in the combined teachings to include further comprising a control panel to interface with an operator, the control panel including a speed dial to adjust rotational speed of the evaporator drum in view of the teachings of Dugu in order to yield the predictable result of adjusting the rotating speed of the drum evaporator according to the ice diameter.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/10/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In regarding to applicant' s argument that the term “a release mechanism and a detector device” should not invoke 112f, the Examiner disagrees. The claim language uses a generic placeholder, “mechanism and device” coupled with functional language (“release and detector”). Further the term “mechanism and device” is merely a nonce word of “non-structural generic placeholder” equivalent to the term “means” because it fails to connote sufficiently definite structure and, in the context of claims 8-9 and 17-18, invokes § 112(f). Therefore, the Applicant's arguments are not persuasive and the claim interpretation is maintained.
In response to the Applicant’s argument that “Neither the evaporator 108 nor the pod 150 meet the claim feature of "an evaporator drum rotatably disposed in the cabinet interior”, the Examiner disagrees. For clarity, Fonte is used in the rejection as a primary reference to teach an evaporator 108 of a refrigeration system 109 whose other components are disposed inside the housing 104 (col 10 lines 23-25). Additionally, the evaporator 108 is fixed in position with respect to the body 102 of the machine 100 and access to the receptacle 110 is provided by movement of the lid 112. In some machines, the evaporator 108 is displaceable relative to the body 102 and movement of the evaporator 108 provides access to the receptacle 110 (col 10 lines 49-53). Therefore, the Applicant’s arguments is not persuasive and the rejection is maintained.
In response to the Applicant’s argument that “Even under the broadest reasonable interpretation standard, a POSA would not consider a paddle rotatably located inside a disposable pod which is inserted into an evaporator as meeting the limitation of "a blade assembly mounted to the housing cabinet" proximate to an evaporator drum rotatably disposed on the housing”, the Examiner disagrees. For clarity, Fonte is used in the rejection as a primary reference to teach the mixing paddle 160 disposed in the body 158 of the pod 150 (as shown on figure 3A). Additionally, on figures 7A-7C illustrate the engagement between the driveshaft 126 of the machine 100 and the mixing paddle 160 of a pod 150 inserted in the machine 100 (col 18 lines 10-12). Therefore, the Applicant’s arguments is not persuasive and the rejection is maintained.
In response to the Applicant’s argument that “Sherman does not disclose or suggest the features of an evaporator drum rotatably disposed in the cabinet interior or a blade assembly that is mounted to the housing cabinet and detachable from the housing cabinet”, the Examiner disagrees. For clarity, Sherman is used in the rejection as a secondary reference to teach a holding tray removably installed in the cabinet interior and accessibly disposed with respect to the evaporator drum, the holding tray adapted to receive the ingredients from the storage device and Fonte is used in the rejection to teach the evaporator 108 is fixed in position with respect to the body 102 of the machine 100 and access to the receptacle 110 is provided by movement of the lid 112. In some machines, the evaporator 108 is displaceable relative to the body 102 and movement of the evaporator 108 provides access to the receptacle 110 (col 10 lines 49-53). Additionally, the mixing paddle 160 disposed in the body 158 of the pod 150 (as shown on figure 3A) and on figures 7A-7C illustrate the engagement between the driveshaft 126 of the machine 100 and the mixing paddle 160 of a pod 150 inserted in the machine 100 (col 18 lines 10-12). Therefore, the Applicant’s arguments is not persuasive and the rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DARIO DELEON whose telephone number is (571)272-8687. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00am-5:00pm.
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, Jerry Daryl Fletcher can be reached at 571-270-5054. 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.
/DARIO ANTONIO DELEON/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/JERRY-DARYL FLETCHER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights