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 § 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 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 22 recites the limitation "the round touchscreen" in lines 6 and 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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(s) 1, 3, 4, 6, 8, 21, 22 and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pamplin (U.S. Patent No. 10,383,482) in view of Lee (EP2708170) or Kolar et al. (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2017/0295997).
Regarding claim 1, Pamplin discloses a portable blender (title), the blender comprising:
a container assembly configured to hold foodstuffs within a container body during blending by the blender (figure 1, container assembly 12), wherein the container body runs between a bottom end and a top end, wherein openings are formed at each of the proximal end and the distal end (figures 3 and 4, container body 20, opening 20b at bottom end not labeled in figure 4, bottom end 21 with opening not labeled in figure 4);
a base assembly configured to interface with a work surface during use of the blender (figure 1, base assembly 11),
one or more mechanical couplings configured to releasably couple the container assembly with the base assembly at or near the bottom end of the container body (figures 1-3, mechanical coupling 26);
an electrical motor integrated into the base assembly (figure 1, electrical motor 14; column 2, lines 46-48);
a rechargeable battery (figure 1, rechargeable battery 15);
a standardized charging interface configured to conduct electrical power to the rechargeable battery (figure 1, charging interface 25);
a blending component configured to rotate around a rotational axis and blend the foodstuffs during blending by the blender, wherein the blending component is configured such that, responsive to the container assembly being coupled with the base assembly, the blending component is positioned within the container body to blend the foodstuffs held therein (figures 1 and 2, blades 13; column 2, lines 44-45; column 3, lines 25-29),
a touchscreen integrated into the base assembly (figure 1, power button 29; column 5, lines 16-24 (power button may be touchscreen that receives user input from user));
control circuitry held within the base assembly, in communication with the touchscreen, and configured to control operation of the electrical motor based on user interactions with the touch screen such that: responsive user interactions with the touchscreen of a first type of gesture, the control circuitry controls the electrical motor to commence blending the foodstuffs in accordance with a present blending mode (figure 1, control circuitry 17; column 5, lines 16-45 (power button 29 is engaged by user to turn blender on and off by a first gesture of the user with the control circuitry 17 controlling blending operations/motor in response to user gesture to turn on/engage power button 29).
However, Pamplin does not explicitly disclose wherein the control circuitry is configured to control operation of the electrical motor based on user interactions with the touch screen such that: responsive user interactions with the touchscreen of a second type of gesture that is different from the first type of gesture, the control circuitry adjusts a parameter of the present blending mode.
Lee teaches another base for a food mixer (title). The reference teaches control circuitry held within the base assembly, in communication with the touchscreen, and configured to control operation of the electrical motor based on user interactions with the touch screen such that: responsive user interactions with the touchscreen of a first type of gesture, the control circuitry controls the electrical motor to commence blending the foodstuffs in accordance with a present blending mode; and responsive user interactions with the touchscreen of a second type of gesture that is different from the first type of gesture, the control circuitry adjusts a parameter of the present blending mode (figures 1, 2 and 4, control unit 2, touch control panel 3, touch control panel 21, food processor 22; abstract; [0004]; [0018]; [0019] (one type of gesture being user touch control panel 3 and in response control unit 2 turns on blender motor); [0003]; [0014]; [0016]-[0017], another type of gesture being user sliding touchscreen 21/215 to the right and in response processor 22 control motor program to increase the speed of the motor according to the sliding signal, and another type of gesture being user sliding touchscreen 21/215 to the left in response processor 22 controls motor program to decrease the speed of the motor according to the sliding signal) (the sliding to the right and the sliding to the left are two different types of gestures; however, to the extent the type of gesture due to the touch control panel 3 is not part of the same single touch screen, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to connect the two touch screens to be a single touch screen in order to save space and keep all controls in the same area for ease of use and simplicity, since it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U.S. 164 (1893), and since such a modification would have involved making elements integral, making elements integral is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965).
Kolar et al. also teaches another base for a blender (title; abstract). The reference teaches control circuitry held within the base assembly, in communication with the touchscreen, and configured to control operation of the electrical motor based on user interactions with the touch screen such that: responsive user interactions with the touchscreen of a first type of gesture, the control circuitry controls the electrical motor to commence blending the foodstuffs in accordance with a present blending mode; and responsive user interactions with the touchscreen of a second type of gesture that is different from the first type of gesture, the control circuitry adjusts a parameter of the present blending mode (figure 1, controller 212, touch screen 216; figures 3-5, #102-118; [0014]-[0015]; [0021]-[0023] (one type of gesture being user touch 116/118 and in response controller 212 turns on blender motor, another type, user holed button 112 by continuous touch to operate blender until stop touching, another is sliding speed control 114 to select speed of operation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to modify the touchscreen of Pamplin to respond to a second type of gesture to adjust a parameter of the present blending mode as taught by Lee and/or Kolar et al.. One of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect such a combination to be suitable given that all references teach bases for food mixers. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do the foregoing because it allows the user to easily and more accurately and quickly control the speed of the motor during operation for better convenience (Lee [0002]) and allows for a user to easily control the operation of the motor with easy thumb movements without the user having to look at the controls (Kolar et al. abstract, [0003]).
Regarding claim 3, Pamplin in view of Lee and Kolar et al. discloses all the limitations as set forth above. Pamplin as modified further discloses wherein the electrical motor is integrated permanently into the base assembly (figure 1, electrical motor 14; column 7, lines 1-4), and wherein the rechargeable battery is integrated permanently into the base assembly such that the base assembly forms an integral whole (figure 1, base assembly 11 and rechargeable battery 15; column 7, lines 5-11).
Regarding claim 4, Pamplin in view of Lee and Kolar et al. discloses all the limitations as set forth above. Pamplin as modified further discloses wherein the standardized charging interface is a universal serial bus (USB) port configured to receive an electrical connector for charging the rechargeable battery (charging interface 25; column 4, lines 27-38).
Regarding claim 6, Pamplin in view of Lee and Kolar et al. discloses all the limitations as set forth above. Pamplin as modified further discloses wherein the round touchscreen further includes an electronic ink design, wherein the electronic ink design is visible to the user responsive to the blender being either in a low-power mode or the blender being turned off (indicator 28; columns 4-5, lines 65-15).
Regarding claim 8, Pamplin in view of Lee and Kolar et al. discloses all the limitations as set forth above. Pamplin as modified by Lee further discloses wherein the control circuitry adjusts a speed of the electrical motor in response to user interactions with the touchscreen of the second type of gesture (Lee [0003]; [0014]; [0016]-[0017] second type of gesture being user sliding touchscreen 21/215 and in response processor 22 control motor program to change the speed of the motor according to the sliding signal); Kolar et al. #114, [0022]).
Regarding claim 21, Pamplin in view of Lee and Kolar et al. discloses all the limitations as set forth above. Pamplin as modified by Lee further discloses wherein the first gesture type includes one or both of the user tapping and holding the touchscreen and/or the user double tapping the touchscreen (Lee figures 1, 2 and 4, control unit 2, touch control panel 3, food processor 22; abstract; [0004]; [0018]; [0019] (first type of gesture being user touch/tapping and holding control panel 3 and in response control unit 2 turns on blender motor and/or touching a second type (double tapping) to turn off the blender); Kolar et al. #112, [0021]).
Regarding claim 22, Pamplin in view of Lee and Kolar et al. discloses all the limitations as set forth above. Pamplin as modified by Lee further discloses wherein the second gesture type includes one or more of the user swiping the touchscreen horizontally from left to right, the user swiping the touchscreen vertically from top to bottom, and/or the user swiping the touchscreen vertically from bottom to top (Lee abstract; figure 1, sliding section 215; [0003]; [0014]; [0016]; [0017]; Kolar et al. #114, [0006]).
Regarding claim 26, Pamplin in view of Lee and Kolar et al. discloses all the limitations as set forth above. Pamplin as modified by Lee further discloses wherein the base assembly has a base diameter between 2 and 4 inches (column 2, lines 60-67).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pamplin in view of Lee and Kolar et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wallace (U.S. Patent No. 10,987,643), Sedlacek et al. (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2018/0161741) and Yu (CN106580130A).
Regarding claim 5, Pamplin in view of Lee and Kolar et al. discloses all the limitations as set forth above. Pamplin as modified by Lee and Kolar et al. further discloses wherein the base assembly has a conical shape, and wherein the round touchscreen is curved to match the conical shape of the base assembly (see figure 1, base assembly 11 is angled in towards the top, delimiting a conical shape, and button 29 is round flesh with the base meaning it is curved to match the conical shape of the base).
However, to the extent column 5, lines 16-24 does not explicitly describe the round power button 29 to be the touch screen or the touchscreen to be round, it is well known in the art at the time the invention was filed that a touchscreen on a blender can have a variety of shapes, including round, circular, oval, and rectangular (as evidenced by Lee control panel 21 is oval and control panel 3 is round; Wallace figure 1, #102 and 105 is rectangular; Sedlacek et al. figure 6, #530 is round; Yu #4 ). The change in configuration of shape of a device is obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration is significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to modify the touchscreen of Pamplin to include a variety of touchscreen shapes, as taught by Lee, Wallace, Sedlacek et al. and Yu. An ordinary skilled artisan before the time of filing would have been motivated to do the foregoing because it is handsome in appearance and easy to operate (Yu page 2, last paragraph).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pamplin in view of Lee and Kolar et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of DE102008032453.
Regarding claim 7, Pamplin in view of Lee and Kolar et al. discloses all the limitations as set forth above. Pamplin further discloses wherein the first blending mode is a fixed-time blending mode of operation during which the blender blends for the default duration (Pamplin reference #17; column 5, lines 25-45). However, Pamplin as modified by Lee does not explicitly disclose wherein the control circuitry adjusts a time period of the fixed-time blending mode of operation in response to user interactions with the touchscreen of the second type of gesture.
DE102008032453 teaches another touchscreen for operating a kitchen device. DE102008032453 teaches wherein the control circuitry adjusts a time period of the fixed-time blending mode of operation in response to user interactions with the touchscreen of the second type of gesture (figure 4, slider #107; figure 5, slider #156 (“zeit” means time)).
It would have been obvious to obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to modify the adjustment control to include the control circuitry adjusting a time period of the fixed-time blending mode of operation in response to user interactions with the touchscreen of the second type of gesture, as taught by DE102008032453. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do the foregoing to include a variety of blending operations controls in order to stop operation when mixing is finished or add more time when more mixing is required, since it is well known in the art of kitchen blenders to adjust the length of time of blending operations.
Claim(s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pamplin in view of Lee and Kolar et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ciepiel (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2018/0116467) and DE102008032453A1.
Regarding claim 24, Pamplin in view of Lee and Kolar et al. discloses all the limitations as set forth above. However, Pamplin as modified by Lee and Kolar et al. does not explicitly disclose wherein the control circuitry is further configured to control presentation of visual content on the touchscreen that includes a digital dial, and wherein the second type of gesture comprises a circular swipe along the touchscreen mimicking rotation of the digital dial to adjust the parameter of the present blending mode. While Lee discloses visual display of a linear sliding section with linear swipe 215 rather than a dial with circular swipe, it is well known in the art at the time the invention was filed that a touchscreen with visual display on a blender can have a variety of shapes, including round/dial with circular swipe (as evidenced by Ciepiel #308 and DE102008032453A1 #30). The change in configuration of shape of a device is obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration is significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to modify the touchscreen/sliding section of Pamplin to include a variety of touchscreen/presentation shapes, as taught by Ciepiel and DE102008032453A1. An ordinary skilled artisan before the time of filing would have been motivated to do the foregoing because it is handsome in appearance and easy to operate and operates the same as disclosed by Lee and Kolar et al.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 ELIZABETH INSLER whose telephone number is (571)270-0492. 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, 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.
/ELIZABETH INSLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1774
