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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 5/11/2026 has been entered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “work surface” as set forth in claim 1; the “container interface” as set forth in claim 1; “a proximal end” as set forth in claim 1; “a distal end” as set forth in claim 1; “openings” as set forth in claim 1; “a haptic feedback engine” as set forth in claim 25 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: “13c” and “13e” as shown in figure 5.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: “a work surface” and “a container interface” as recited in claim 1 are not mentioned in the original specification. To the extent different nomenclature is used in the specification, the claim limitation nomenclature should be consistent with the nomenclature in the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 3-8, 21-22 and 24-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Neither the original specification, claims nor figures describe wherein the blending component is integrally coupled with the electrical motor as set forth in claim 1, lines 19-20. Claims 3-8, 21-22 and 24-26 are also rejected under 35 USC 112(a) by virtue of their dependency on claim 1.
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.
Claims 1, 3-8, 21-22 and 24-26 are 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 1 recites the limitation, “a base assembly configured to interface with a work surface during use of the blender” in lines 7-8. It is unclear what “a work surface” is referring to since neither the specification nor the figures ever mention a work surface and the claim limitation fails to recite or describe a work surface of which element. The claim limitation fails to state which element has the work surface or what the work surface that is interface with the base assembly; whether it is part of the base assembly or container assembly or some other assembly. As such the claim is indefinite for failing to distinctly claim the invention. Claims 3-8, 21-22 and 24-26 are also rejected under 35 USC 112(b) by virtue of their dependency on claim 1.
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).
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 proximal end and a distal 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 distal end not labeled in figure 4, proximal 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),
a container interface configured to releasably couple the container assembly with the base assembly at or near the proximal 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 integrally coupled with the electrical motor to be driven rotationally about the rotational axis by the electrical motor, and wherein the blending component is further 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] (first type of gesture being user touch control panel 3 and in response control unit 2 turns on blender motor); [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)).
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. One of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect such a combination to be suitable given that both 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]).
Regarding claim 3, Pamplin in view of Lee 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 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 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 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)).
Regarding claim 21, Pamplin in view of Lee 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)).
Regarding claim 22, Pamplin in view of Lee 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]).
Regarding claim 26, Pamplin in view of Lee 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 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 discloses all the limitations as set forth above. Pamplin as modified by Lee 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 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of DE102008032453.
Regarding claim 7, Pamplin in view of Lee 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 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 discloses all the limitations as set forth above. However, Pamplin as modified by Lee 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.
Claim(s) 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pamplin in view of Lee as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Roeckl (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2020/0000130).
Regarding claim 25, Pamplin in view of Lee discloses all the limitations as set forth above. However, Pamplin as modified does not explicitly disclose a haptic feedback engine. Roeckl teaches another blending device (abstract; figure 1). The reference teaches wherein the base assembly further includes a haptic feedback engine in communication with the control circuitry, and wherein the control circuitry is configured to initiate a first haptic feedback response responsive to detecting the first type of gesture, and initiate a second haptic feedback response responsive to detecting the second type of gesture, wherein the first haptic feedback response is different from the second haptic feedback response ([0010]; [0013]-[0014]; [0024]; [0037]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to provide the haptic feedback engine of Roeckl in the base assembly of Pamplin. 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 provide a haptic feedback engine as a way of providing information to the user (Roeckl [0010]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot in view of the teaching of the Lee reference.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights