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 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.
Claims 1, 3, 6, 7, 11, 14, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Extsud in view of Cheung et al. (US 2017/0065944) and Hoare et al. (US 2016/0296899). Regarding claim 1, Extsud discloses a rechargeable blender configured to blend foodstuffs, the blender comprising a base assembly (9,12, 13,14; reference characters according to produce literature shown at 24 seconds in the video), a container assembly (1,2,3,4,5,6), a blending component (8 and optionally 7), a power interface (10,11) that includes a button (11), and control circuitry (see "battery driven DC motor" at 0:24), wherein the blending component is configured to rotate and blend the foodstuffs during blending by the blender, wherein the base assembly includes an electrical motor ("motor model DC 3.6V" in product literature at 0:24) configured to drive rotation of the blending component, and a rechargeable battery (see video title "USB Rechargeable") configured to power the electrical motor, wherein the container assembly is configured to hold the foodstuffs during blending by the blender, wherein the power interface is configured to provide an interface for the user to control operation of the blender through manual engagements with the power interface by the user. As explained in the audio (see transcript from 0:42 to 0:52) and as demonstrated in the corresponding and other portions of the video, for safety, while the blender is a locked (off) mode, a single press of the button does not initiated blending. The button must be pressed twice in quick succession to activate the motor. In other words, from the locked (off) mode, a single press of the button briefly activates an unlocked but ready to blend mode and if this is quickly followed by a second press of the button the blender enters blending mode (the blade 8 actually rotates). A manual engagement of pressing a button for 3 seconds to go from the locked to the ready state and from the ready to the locked state is not explicitly disclosed. Hoare teaches pressing a button of a blender for 3 seconds (see [0253]) to changes modes. Cheung teaches utilizing a same-button pressing technique to go from a lock mode to a ready mode and from a ready mode to a locked mode both based upon a same manual engagement (see [0034]). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have provided the capability for the blender to change modes from the locked to the ready state and from the ready to the locked state by pressing the button for 3 seconds as taught by Cheung and Hoare to better control the blender and improve safety. Regarding claim 3, the power interface has LED light (10). Regarding claim 6, from Hoare it is understood that 3 seconds is exemplary and that one of ordinary skill in the art may discover an optimal or workable range of values. Regarding claim 7, the blending component is a set of blades (8). Regarding claim 11, the blending component is included in and permanently mounted to the base assembly (see drawing at 0:24). Regarding claim 14, the base assembly includes a first mechanical coupling configured to couple the base assembly to the container assembly, wherein the container assembly includes a second mechanical coupling disposed at or near the proximal end of the container assembly, wherein the second mechanical coupling is configured to engage the first mechanical coupling of the base assembly to couple the base assembly to the base assembly (see drawing at 0:24). Regarding claim 18, the container assembly has a volume between 8 and 48 ounces (see "380 ml" in the product literature at 0:24); the base assembly has a cylindrical shape and (see video at 0:01) and the size in relationship to the person's hand would have suggested 2-4 inch diameter (see video at 0:01) to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date. Regarding claim 20, Extsud further discloses that the power interface includes exactly one button (11). Cheung also teaches "32a and 32b can be replaced by a single safety switch" in [0035]. In Exstud, only pressing the sole button after a short interval of not pressing the button causes the transition from locked to unlocked. Cheung is relied upon for teaching that a same button-pressing technique can be utilized to go from the unlocked to locked state, as from the locked to unlocked state.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Extsud in view of Cheung et al. (US 2017/0065944). Regarding claim 19, Extsud discloses a blender configured to blend foodstuffs, the blender comprising a base assembly (9,12, 13,14; reference characters according to produce literature show at 24 seconds in the video), a container assembly (1,2,3,4,5,6), a blending component (8 and optionally 7), a power interface (10,11) that includes a button (11), and control circuitry (see "battery driven DC motor" at 0:24), wherein the blending component is configured to rotate and blend the foodstuffs during blending by the blender, wherein the base assembly includes an electrical motor ("motor model DC 3.6V" in product literature at 0:24) configured to drive rotation of the blending component, wherein the container assembly is configured to hold the foodstuffs during blending by the blender, wherein the power interface is configured to provide an interface for the user to control operation of the blender through manual engagements with the power interface by the user. As explained in the video (see transcript from 0:42 to 0:52) and as demonstrated in the corresponding and other portion of the video, for safety, while the blender is a locked (off) mode, a single press of the button does not initiated blending. The button must be pressed twice in quick succession to activate the motor. In other words, from the locked (off) mode, a single press of the button briefly activates an unlocked but ready to blend mode and if this is quickly followed by a second press of the button the blender enters blending mode (the blade 8 actually rotates). A manual engagement of pressing a button 3 times within 3 seconds to go from the locked to the ready state and from the ready to the locked state is not explicitly disclosed. Cheung teaches utilizing a same button-pressing technique to go from a locked mode to a ready mode and from a ready mode to a locked mode both based upon a same manual engagement (see [0034]) and repeatedly pressing a button as the manual engagement is disclosed (see [0035]). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have provided the capability for the blender to change modes from the locked to the ready state and from the ready to the locked state by pressing repeatedly as taught by Cheung to better control the blender and improve safety.
Claims 2, 8, 13, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Extsud in view of Cheung et al. (US 2017/0065944) and Hoare et al. (US 2016/0296899) and further in view of Mizrahi (US 2018/0146826). The blender of Extsud in view of Cheung and Hoare was discussed above. Regarding claim 2, a charging interface is further disclosed (see video title "USB Rechargeable") by Extsud. However, it is not stated that the circuit is implemented on a printed circuit board. Mizrahi teaches a printed circuit board (see [0056], [0063], [0080], [0082]). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have implemented the circuit in a printed circuit board as taught by Mizrahi for the well known compactness, low cost and reliability benefits. Regarding claim 8, a detector (310) is taught by Mizrahi. Regarding claim 13, the electrical motor of Extsud is integrated permanently into the base assembly, and the rechargeable battery is integrated permanently into the base assembly such that the base assembly forms an integral whole (see drawing at 0:24). Regarding claim 16, a USB port is further disclosed (see video title "USB Rechargeable") by Extsud.
Claims 2, 13, 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Extsud in view of Cheung et al. (US 2017/0065944) and Hoare et al. (US 2016/0296899) and further in view of Bertsch (US 10,399,050). The blender of Extsud in view of Cheung and Hoare was discussed above. Regarding claim 2, a charging interface is further disclosed (see video title "USB Rechargeable") by Extsud. A printed circuit board is taught by Bertsch (see col. 8, line 37). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have implemented the circuit in a printed circuit board as taught by Bertsch for the well known compactness, low cost and reliability benefits. Regarding claim 13, the electrical motor of Extsud is integrated permanently into the base assembly and the rechargeable battery is integrated permanently into the base assembly such that the base assembly forms an integral whole (see drawing at 0:24). Regarding claim 16, A USB port is further disclosed (see video title "USB Rechargeable") by Extsud. Regarding claim 17, Bertsch also teaches wireless charging (see col. 6, lines 7- 20).
Claims 8 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Extsud in view of Cheung et al. (US 2017/0065944) and Hoare et al. (US 2016/0296899) and further in view of Pryor et al. (US 2008/0221739). The blender of Extsud in view of Cheung and Hoare was discussed above. Regarding claim 8, a detector detecting whether the base assembly is coupled to the container assembly is not disclosed. Pryor teaches a detector to detect if a container assembly is coupled to a base assembly (see [0027]). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have implemented the teachings of Pryor concerning a detector, to improve safety. Regarding claim 15, Pryor further teaches a magnetic element in combination with the detector (see [0027])
Claims 2, 8, 13, 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Extsud in view of Cheung et al. (US 2017/0065944) and Hoare et al. (US 2016/0296899) and further in view of KKSTAR. The blender of Extsud in view of Cheung and Hoare was discussed above. Regarding claim 2, a charging interface is further disclosed (see video title "USB Rechargeable") by Extsud. However, it is not stated that the circuit is implemented on a printed circuit board. KKSTAR teaches a printed circuit board (see video at 11:11) in a highly analogous blender. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have implemented the circuit in a printed circuit board as taught by KKSTAR for the well known compactness, low cost and reliability benefits. Regarding claim 8, a detector detecting whether the base assembly is coupled to the container assembly is not disclosed. KKSTAR teaches a detector to detect if a container assembly is coupled to a base assembly (see partial transcript of video from 1:42-2:07 and the corresponding part of the video). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have provided a detector to improve safety as explained by KKSTAR. Regarding claim 13, the electrical motor of Extsud is integrated permanently into the base assembly, and the rechargeable battery is integrated permanently into the base assembly such that the base assembly forms an integral whole (see drawing at 0:24). Regarding claim 15, KKSTAR further teaches a magnetic element in combination with the detector (see partial transcript of video from 1:42-2:07 and the corresponding part of the video). Regarding claim 16, A USB port is further disclosed (see video title "USB Rechargeable") by Extsud.
Response to Arguments
Concerning claim 1, applicant denies that Extsud discloses a locked mode. Extsud discloses a lock mode whereby a single press of the button does not cause blending. In Extsud, when in the locked mode, only pressing the button twice in quick succession causes blending. It is acknowledged that there are differences between Extsud and the claimed invention; however, having a locked mode is one of the many shared features between Extsud and the prior art.
Applicant remarks the Extsud “does not establish that the blender occupies a persistent locked operational state”. While the claims do not refer to a “persistent” locked state, the locked state of Extsud nonetheless persists for an unlimited duration until a user takes concrete action.
Applicant states “A momentary interval between two presses in a double-press startup sequence is not the claimed unlocked- but-ready-to-blend mode” but applicant give no explanation as to why not.
Applicant states “The Office Action's mapping is also internally inconsistent. The Office Action appears to rely on the first press in Extsud as allegedly producing a transition from a locked/off condition to an unlocked-but-ready-to-blend condition. But claim 1 expressly requires that, during the locked mode, the blender does not transition to another mode responsive to the first manual engagement. Thus, if the first press in Extsud causes the alleged transition out of the alleged locked mode, Extsud fails to teach the claimed locked-mode limitation. Conversely, if the first press in Extsud does not cause a transition, then Extsud does not teach the alleged transition to the unlocked-but-ready- to-blend mode. The Office Action cannot rely on both interpretations simultaneously.” However, firstly, as recited in instead claim 19, applicant considers the pressing of the same button more than once in a short interval to a different manual engagement then pressing the same button after a long interval of not pressing the button. In Extsud, the two different engagements may be considered pressing the button after a long interval of not pressing and pressing the button after a short interval of not pressing. Secondly, the rejection is not based upon Extsud alone. The office action describes what Extsud discloses, explains how it is different from which is claimed, and then explains what the other references teach and why the claimed invention would have been obvious.
Applicant states “Even if Extsud actually taught a locked mode, as recited in the claims, the teachings of Cheung would not render the claimed functionality of the single button in claim 1 obvious because Cheung does not provide any teaching at all regarding the use of a single button to both enter/exit a locked mode and to separately control activation of the blender when the blender is not in the locked mode.” However, Exstud itself discloses exactly one button to both enter/exit a locked mode and control activation of the blender. The grounds for rejection involve the modification of Exstud in view of the teachings of Cheung and Hoare. Even if applicant’s statement were correct, it would merely show that Cheung does not anticipate the claimed invention under section 102.
Cheung is analogous art with respect to the instant alleged invention because both are handheld, electric blenders having rotating blending components that rotate within the contents to be blended. This is much different than saying all mixing devices are analogous art, because there are static mixers, vibratory mixers, mixers where the container itself moves such as concrete mixing trucks, manual mixing devices such as whisks, reciprocating mixers, etc.
A reason to modify Extsud according to the teachings of Cheung is to better control the blender in the sense of improving safety. Cheung explains the motivation of safety.
Applicant’s proposition “The relevant question is whether Hoare teaches or suggests using a 3-second press of the same button to transition between a locked mode and an unlocked-but-ready-to-blend mode in the claimed single-button state machine” is not agreed to. The Graham v Deere analysis is whether the differences between the prior art and the instance invention would have been obvious, while applicant is instead proposing that any reference relied upon should anticipate the nearly the entirety of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 19, Exstud itself teaches pressing the sole button a second time after only a short interval of not pressing it, to unlock. Cheung is primarily relied upon as teaching that a same button-pressing technique can be utilized to go from the unlocked to locked state, as from the locked to unlocked state.
Regarding claim 20, in Exstud, only pressing the sole button after a short interval of not pressing the button causes the transition from locked to unlocked. Cheung is relied upon for teaching that a same button-pressing technique can be utilized to go from the unlocked to locked state, as from the locked to unlocked state.
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 DAVID L SORKIN whose telephone number is (571)272-1148. The examiner can normally be reached 7am-3:30pm.
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 X 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.
DAVID L. SORKIN
Examiner
Art Unit 1774
/DAVID L SORKIN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1774
Prosecution Insights