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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 03 December 2025 has been entered.
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), 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, which the blender is a locked (off) mode, a single press of the bottom 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 to one of ordinary skill in the art 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. 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 dimeter (see video at 0:01).
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 1, 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), 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, which the blender is a locked (off) mode, a single press of the bottom does not initiated blending. The button must be press 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 to one of ordinary skill in the art 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. 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].
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. A USB port 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 to one of ordinary skill in the art to have implemented the circuit in a printed circuit board as taught by Mizrahi for the well know compactness, low cost and reliability benefits. A detector (310) is taught by Mizrahi. 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).
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. A USB port 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 to one of ordinary skill in the art to have implemented the circuit in a printed circuit board as taught by Bertsch for the well know compactness, low cost and reliability benefits. Bertsch also teaches wireless charging (see col. 6, lines 7- 20). 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).
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. A detector detecting whether the base assembly is coupled to the container assembly is not disclosed. Pryor teaches a magnetic element and detector to detect if a container assembly is coupled to a base assembly (see [0027]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have implemented the teachings of Pryor concerning a magnetic element and detector, to improve safety.
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. A USB port 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 to one of ordinary skill in the art to have implemented the circuit in a printed circuit board as taught by KKSTAR for the well know compactness, low cost and reliability benefits. A magnetic element and detector are disclosed (see partial transcript of video from 1:42-2:07 and the corresponding part of the video). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have added magnets and a detector to improve safety as explained by KKSTAR. 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).
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that Extsud does not teach the 3 second pressing of a button to transition modes; however, this is already acknowledged in the grounds for rejection. This is the reason thet Cheung and Hoare are also relied upon and none of the claims is considered anticipated. Only by considering the teaching of the 3 references in combination can the grounds for rejection for independent claim 1 be addressed.
Regarding Cheung applicant states “Actually, a manual engagement of pressing a button for 3 seconds to go from the locked to the ready state is not disclosed, and furthermore, a manual engagement of pressing a button for 3 seconds to go from the ready to the locked state is also not disclosed” however, again applicant is not considering Hoare.
Applicant states “Cheung actually describes a specific sequence of pushing or engaging multiple different buttons”; however, Cheung expressly states “32a and 32b can be replaced by a single safety switch. Pressing the safety switch or pressing the safety switch a second time can unlock or lock the whole circuit of the hand-held blender”.
Cheung is analogous art because both Cheung and the instant invention pertain to blenders, particularly hand held blenders.
Conclusion
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