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.
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, 3-9, 11, 12 and 21-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pamplin (U.S. Patent No. 10,383,482) 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 1, Pamplin discloses a portable blender (title), the blender comprising:
a base assembly having a shape (figure 1, reference #11), a container assembly (figure 1, reference #12), a blending component (figure 1, reference #13), a round button or touchscreen (reference #29 (power button is shown in figures 1 and 2 as being round); column 5, lines 16-24 (power button may be touchscreen that receives user input from user)), and control circuitry (figure 1, reference #17),
wherein the base assembly includes: an electrical motor configured to drive rotation of the blending component, wherein the electrical motor is integrated into the base assembly (reference #14), and wherein the shape of the base assembly has a base diameter between 2 and 4 inches (column 2, lines 60-67);
a rechargeable battery configured to power the electrical motor (reference #15); and
a standardized charging interface configured to conduct electrical power to the rechargeable battery (reference #25);
wherein the blending component is configured to rotate around a rotational axis and blend the foodstuffs during blending by the blender (reference #13; column 3, lines 25-26),
wherein the container assembly is configured to hold the foodstuffs within a container body during blending by the blender (reference #12 and 20), wherein the container assembly includes: a proximal end that is open and that is disposed, subsequent to the base assembly being coupled to the container assembly, near the blending component (reference #21); and a distal end opposite the proximal end (reference #22);
wherein the round button or touchscreen is configured to (a) receive different types of user input from a user, including a first type of user input (reference #29 (power button is shown in figures 1 and 2 as being round and user pushes button to power blender on or off as user input, with “on” being one type of user input and “off” being different type of user input; column 5, lines 16-24 (power button may be touchscreen that receives user input from user)), wherein the round button or touchscreen is integrated into the base assembly (figures 1 and 2, reference #29 integrated into base assembly reference #11) and configured to: (ii) receive the first type of user input, wherein the first type of user input includes the user touching the round button or touchscreen in a first manner, wherein the first type of user input turns the blending on and off (reference #29; column 5, lines 16-24 (“on” user engagement being first type of user input; reference #29; column 5, lines 16-24 (second engagement by user to turn off blender being type of user input) (it is noted that the limitation is directed to an intended use of the control interface which does not further limit an apparatus claim; neither the manner of operating a disclosed device nor material or article worked upon further limit an apparatus claim. Said limitations do not differentiate apparatus claims from prior art. See MPEP § 2114 and 2115. Further, it has been held that process limitations do not have patentable weight in an apparatus claim. See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969) that states “Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and to an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.” The round power button is capable of receiving a first type of user inputs for turning the machine on and for turning the machine off);
wherein the control circuitry is included in the base assembly and configured to: control the electrical motor during the rotation of the blending component; make detections distinguishing the different types of user input received by the round touchscreen, wherein the detections include a first type of detections and a second type of detections, wherein the first type of detections indicates occurrences of the round button or touchscreen receiving the first type of user input from the user; responsive to a first detection of the first type of detections, effectuate a transition from the ready-to-blend mode to the first blending mode, wherein: (i) during the ready-to-blend mode, the blender is not blending, and (ii) during the first blending mode, the blender is blending for the default duration (reference #17; column 5, lines 16-45) (it is noted that the limitation is directed to an intended use of the control circuit which does not further limit an apparatus claim; neither the manner of operating a disclosed device nor material or article worked upon further limit an apparatus claim. Said limitations do not differentiate apparatus claims from prior art. See MPEP § 2114 and 2115. Further, it has been held that process limitations do not have patentable weight in an apparatus claim. See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969) that states “Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and to an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.”).
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, elliptical and rectangular (as evidenced by Wallace figure 1, reference #102 and 105; Sedlacek et al. figure 6, reference #530; Yu reference #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 at the time othe invention was filed to modify the touchscreen of Pamplin to include a variety of touchscreen shapes, as taught by Wallace, Sedlacek et al. and Yu. An ordinary skilled artisan at the time the invention was filed would have been motivated to do the foregoing because it is handsome in appearance and easy to operate (Yu page 2, last paragraph).
However, the reference does not explicitly disclose wherein the touchscreen is configured to present information to the user and configured to receive a second type of user input, wherein the second type of user input includes the user touching the touchscreen in a second manner that is different from the first manner.
Wallace teaches another blender configured for blending foodstuffs (abstract; figure 1 and 2). The reference teaches wherein the touchscreen is configured to present information to the user (figures 1 and 7, reference #102, 105, 170A and 180; figure 4B and 4C, reference #474, 474A, 474B, 474C and 474D; figures 6A, 6B and 7A, reference #614; figure 7B, reference #170 and 170D; figure 9A, reference #914; column 4, lines 12-19; column 18, lines 32-53; column 20, lines 15-49; column 21, lines 24-44; column 28, lines 18-35; column 36, lines 60-64) and configured to receive a second type of user input, wherein the second type of user input includes the user touching the round touchscreen in a second manner that is different from the first manner; wherein the control circuitry is included in the base assembly and configured to: control the electrical motor during the rotation of the blending component; make detections distinguishing the different types of user input received by the round touchscreen, wherein the detections include a first type of detections and a second type of detections, wherein the first type of detections indicates occurrences of the round button or touchscreen receiving the first type of user input from the user; responsive to a first detection of the first type of detections, effectuate a transition from the ready-to-blend mode to the first blending mode, wherein: (i) during the ready-to-blend mode, the blender is not blending, and (ii) during the first blending mode, the blender is blending for the default duration (figure 6A, 6b, 7A, 7B, reference #124; column 4, lines 12-19; column 12, lines 31-62; column 18, lines 32-53; column 20, lines 15-49; column 21, lines 24-44).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the touchscreen of Pamplin to present information to the user and modify the type of user input as taught by Wallace. One of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect such a combination to be suitable given that both references teach blending devices. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do the foregoing because it allows the user to easily input and view various complicated blending parameters to operate the blender in an automated and complex operation (Wallace column 3, lines 44-48; column 4, lines 12-17).
Regarding the limitation, “a portable blender configured to blend foodstuffs”, this limitation is part of the preamble and directed to an intended use of the blender. A preamble is generally not accorded any patentable weight where it merely recites the purpose of a process or the intended use of a structure, and where the body of the claim does not depend on the preamble for completeness but, instead, the process steps or structural limitations are able to stand alone. See In re Hirao, 535 F.2d 67, 190 USPQ 15 (CCPA 1976) and Kropa v. Robie, 187 F.2d 150, 152, 88 USPQ 478, 481 (CCPA 1951). Therefore, the fact that the blender is intended to be portable and blend foodstuffs is not accorded any patentable weight. However, in order to further compact prosecution, it is noted that the blender of Pamplin is both portable and configured to blend foodstuffs (column 1, lines 16-17)).
Regarding claim 3, Pamplin in view of Wallace, Sedlacek et al. and Yu discloses all the limitations as set forth above. The reference as modified further discloses wherein the electrical motor is integrated permanently into the base assembly (figure 1, reference #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, reference #11 and 15; column 7, lines 5-11).
Regarding claim 4, Pamplin in view of Wallace, Sedlacek et al. and Yu discloses all the limitations as set forth above. The reference 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 (reference #25; column 4, lines 27-38).
Regarding claim 5, Pamplin in view of Wallace, Sedlacek et al. and Yu discloses all the limitations as set forth above. The reference as modified 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, reference #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).
Regarding claim 6, Pamplin in view of Wallace, Sedlacek et al. and Yu discloses all the limitations as set forth above. The reference 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 (reference #28; columns 4-5, lines 65-15).
Regarding claim 7, Pamplin as modified in view of Wallace, Sedlacek et al. and Yu discloses wherein the first blending mode is a fixed-time blending mode of operation during which the blender blends for the default duration, and wherein, during the fixed-time blending mode of operation, the control circuitry is configured to prevent the rotation of the blending component after expiration of the default duration (Pamplin reference #17; column 5, lines 25-45; Wallace figures 1 and 7, reference #102, 105 and 180; column 4, lines 12-19; column 18, lines 32-53; column 20, lines 15-49; column 21, lines 24-44). It is also noted that the limitations are directed to an intended use of the control circuitry which does not further limit an apparatus claim. The control circuitry is capable to function as recited (reference #17; columns 3-4, lines 50-4; column 5, lines 25-45).
Regarding claim 8, as stated above in the rejection to claim 1, the detections are part of the intended use of the control interface and is not positively recited structures of the claim, and therefore the limitations as recited in claim 8 which further limit the detections are not positive structural limitations that are part of the claim. It is also noted that the limitations are directed to an intended use of the detections which does not further limit an apparatus claim. However, in order to further prosecution, Pamplin as modified in view of Wallace, Sedlacek et al. and Yu further discloses wherein the detections are capable to further include a third type of detections, wherein the third type of detections indicates occurrences of the round touchscreen receiving a third type of user input, and wherein the third type of user input indicates the user touching the round touchscreen in a third manner that differs from the first manner and the second manner (Wallace figures 6B and 7B, reference #102, 190 and 180; column 4, lines 12-19; column 18, lines 32-53; column 20, lines 15-49; column 21, lines 24-44).
Regarding claim 9, Pamplin in view of Wallace, Sedlacek et al. and Yu discloses all the limitations as set forth above. The reference as modified further discloses wherein the second type of user input indicates the user selecting a settings item included in a settings menu (figure 6A, 6b, 7A, 7B, reference #124; column 4, lines 12-19; column 12, lines 31-62; column 18, lines 32-53; column 20, lines 15-49; column 21, lines 24-44) wherein the round touchscreen is further configured to: present the user with a settings menu, wherein the settings menu includes a settings item, wherein the settings item corresponds to a modification of a default duration of the first blending mode, wherein the first blending mode is a fixed-time blending mode of operation during which the blender blends for the default duration; present the user with at least one of a selection menu and a recipe menu, responsive to a detection of the third type of detections (Wallace figures 1, 6 and 7, reference #102, 105 and 180; column 4, lines 12-19; column 18, lines 32-53; column 20, lines 15-49; column 21, lines 24-44); and wherein the control circuitry is further configured to, responsive to a second detection of the second type of detections, effectuate the modification of the default duration of the first blending mode, wherein the modification corresponds with the user selecting the settings item included in the settings menu (figures 1 and 7, reference #102, 105, 170A and 180; figure 4B and 4C, reference #474, 474A, 474B, 474C and 474D; figures 6A, 6B and 7A, reference #614; figure 7B, reference #170 and 170D; figure 9A, reference #914; column 4, lines 12-19; column 18, lines 32-53; column 20, lines 15-49; column 21, lines 24-44; column 28, lines 18-35; column 36, lines 60-64).
Regarding claim 11, Pamplin as modified in view of Wallace, Sedlacek et al. and Yu further discloses wherein the control circuitry is further configured to transition from the first blending mode to a second blending mode, responsive to a second occurrence of the first type of detections, wherein the second blending mode includes a variable-time blending mode, and wherein during the variable-time blending mode of operation, the control circuitry is configured to effectuate the rotation of the blending component for one or more durations, wherein individual ones of the one or more durations correspond to individual occurrences of the user touching the round touchscreen (Pamplin reference #17; column 5, lines 25-45; Wallace figures 1 and 7, reference #102, 105 and 180; column 4, lines 12-19; column 18, lines 32-53; column 20, lines 15-49; column 21, lines 24-44). It is also noted that the limitations are directed to an intended use of the control circuitry which does not further limit an apparatus claim. The control circuitry is capable to function as recited (reference #17; columns 3-4, lines 50-4; column 5, lines 25-45).
Regarding claim 12, Pamplin in view of Wallace, Sedlacek et al. and Yu discloses all the limitations as set forth above. The reference as modified further discloses wherein the control circuity is further configured to make detections regarding the first type of detection, wherein the first type of detections indicated the user tapping the round touchscreen once, make detections regarding the second type of detections, wherein the second type of detections indicated multiple consecutive occurrences of the user tapping the round touchscreen, and make detections regarding the third type of detections, wherein the third type of detections indicates the user swiping the round touchscreen (Pamplin reference #17 and 29; columns 3-4, lines 50-4; column 5, lines 16-45; Wallace figures 1 and 7, reference #102, 105 and 180; column 4, lines 12-19; column 18, lines 32-53; column 20, lines 15-49; column 21, lines 24-44). It is also noted that the limitations are directed to an intended use of the control circuitry which does not further limit an apparatus claim.
Regarding claim 21, Pamplin in view of Wallace, Sedlacek et al. and Yu discloses all the limitations as set forth above. The reference as modified further discloses wherein the first manner of the user touching the round touchscreen includes at least one of (i) the user tapping and holding the round touchscreen, (ii) the user double tapping the round touchscreen, (iii) the user swiping the round touchscreen horizontally from left to right, (iv) the user swiping the round touchscreen horizontally from right to left, (v) the user swiping the round touchscreen vertically from top to bottom, and (vi) the user swiping the round touchscreen vertically from bottom to top (Wallace, figure 6A, reference #124 and 260A; figure 7A, reference #122, 124 and 710; column 30, lines 1-21). It is noted that the limitation is directed to an intended use and method of operation which does not further limit an apparatus claim.
Regarding claim 22, Pamplin in view of Wallace, Sedlacek et al. and Yu discloses all the limitations as set forth above. The reference as modified further discloses wherein the second manner of the user touching the round touchscreen includes at least one of (i) the user tapping and holding the round touchscreen, (ii) the user double tapping the round touchscreen, (iii) the user swiping the round touchscreen horizontally from left to right, (iv) the user swiping the round touchscreen horizontally from right to left, (v) the user swiping the round touchscreen vertically from top to bottom, and (vi) the user swiping the round touchscreen vertically from bottom to top (Wallace, Wallace, figure 6A, reference #124 is tapping and holding; figure 7A reference #710 is user touching top half region of touchscreen in single manner and reference #614 is user touching bottom half region of touchscreen in double manner (i.e. double tapping touchscreen); column 30, lines 1-21). It is noted that the limitation is directed to an intended use and method of operation which does not further limit an apparatus claim.
Regarding claim 23, Pamplin in view of Wallace, Sedlacek et al. and Yu discloses all the limitations as set forth above. The reference as modified further discloses wherein the first manner of the user touching the round touchscreen is different from the second manner of the user touching the round touchscreen (Wallace, figure 6A, reference #124 can touch top, right half region in a first manner and can touch second bottom left region of touchscreen in a second manner; figure 7A reference #710 is user touching top half region of touchscreen in first manner and reference #614 is user touching bottom half region of touchscreen in second manner). It is noted that the limitation is directed to an intended use and method of operation which does not further limit an apparatus claim.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/21/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues Pamplin fails to disclose limitations, such as a round touchscreen and different types of inputs; however, the office action never stated that Pamplin discloses those limitations. Rather secondary references are used to teach those limitations. For example, the office action states that Pamplin discloses a round button or touchscreen. Examiner never stated Pamplin disclosed a touchscreen that is round in shape. Rather, Examiner used secondary references such as Wallace and Yu to teach the touchscreen can be different shapes such as round and the shape of the touchscreen is not significant and would have been obvious to change to round. Furthermore, Applicant admits on Remarks, page 12, last paragraph that Pamplin was never stated as describing the different types of inputs, so Examiner is not clear on why Applicant is arguing that Pamplin does not disclose the different types of inputs. Examiner stated that turning the blender on and off is one input.
Applicant argues Pamplin fails to disclose the control circuitry being configured to make detections distinguishing the different types of user input received by the touchscreen. Examiner finds this argument unpersuasive. First, Applicant has not explained why beyond repeating the limitation and the cited lines from the Pamplin disclosure. Applicant's arguments amount to a general allegation without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references. Furthermore, as the cited lines state, the control circuitry of Pamplin distinguishes between the on and off input from the user. Applicant has not explained why this does not read on the limitation.
Applicant argues Pamplin fails to disclose the variable-time blending mode of operation and further argues the control circuitry is a structural element. First, Pamplin discloses control circuitry that is capable to have variable-time blending based on the user input of turning the blender on for a certain amount of time, and then based on the input of when the user turns the blender off. Second, as explained in the office action, the control circuitry is a structural element; Examiner never indicated otherwise. However, the configured to language that recites process limitations are not structural limitations.
Applicant’s arguments are directed to the Pamplin reference alone without consideration of the teachings of the secondary reference. Many of Applicant’s arguments are moot because those limitations are being taught by other secondary references, even when Examiner has clearly stated in the office action that Pamplin does not disclose those limitations.
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