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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 on10/28/2025 has been entered.
Claim Status
Claims 1,20 and 25 have been amended.
Claims 14-19 have been canceled.
Claims 1-13 and 20-26 are pending and examined as follows:
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 sensor of claim 6, and the input and output devices, must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). All of the drawings show a single sensor. No new matter should be entered.
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.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Chopping tool and mixing tool in claims 1,20 and 25.
Control unit in claims 1,20 and 25.
Heating element in claim 2 and 26.
Output device claim 10.
Input device in claim 11.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. The chopping tool is described as a cutting disc in the specification (cutting disc 5, Fig. 1). The control unit is described in the specification as a computer (paragraph 0070, lines 2-4). There is no structural equivalent for the heating element in the specification. The mixing tool is described in the specification as a U-shaped tool that is attached to the motor drive (mixing tool 21, Fig. 6). There is no structural equivalent for the output device. There is no structural equivalent for the input device.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claim 7 is 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. Claim 7 has the limitation “determine a fill level in the vessel based on the sensor signal”. It is unclear how any sensor defined by the specification which detects compressive force exerted on a part of the food would be able to determine a fill level in the vessel. There is no algorithm that determines the fill level based on compressive force or weight sensor. Further, because every food (beef vs. lettuce for example) has a different density, there is no disclosure of how the algorithm would allow for different sensed weights to accurately gauge the current fill level.
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 2,6,7,10,11,12,15 and 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 6 has the limitation “wherein a sensor is provided for detecting at least one of a compressive force”. Claim 6 is dependent from claim 5 which also has a sensor. It is unclear if the sensor of claim 6 is referring to the sensor of claim 5 or another separate sensor.
Claim 7 has the limitation “determine a fill level in the vessel based on the sensor signal”. It is unclear how the sensor of claim 5 which detects compressive force exerted on a part of the food would be able to determine a fill level in the vessel.
Claim limitations “heating element”, “input device” and “output device” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. There is no corresponding structure described in the specification for the control unit.
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6,8-13 and 20-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kolar (US 2018/0255975) in view of Frielinghaus (US 11,109,713).
With regards to claim 1, Kolar discloses a food preparation apparatus (blending system 100, Fig. 1), the apparatus comprising a vessel (lid 120 with a chute 124, Fig. 1), a chopping attachment arranged relative to the vessel (disc 140 arranged relative to the lid 120, Fig. 1, Fig. 9), the chopping attachment comprising a rotatable chopping tool for chopping foods (disc 140 is rotated by shaft 150, Fig. 1), the chopping attachment being configured such that wherein the chopping tool is arranged or arrangeable relative to the vessel in such a way that, after chopping by means of the chopping tool, a food falls downwards due to gravity to be collected in the vessel (disc 140 being configured such that wherein the disc 140 is arranged relative lid 120 in such a way that, food is pushed through chute 124 of lid 120 towards the disc 140 for food to fall by gravity, Fig. 11), a food preparation vessel for preforming a food preparation operation (blender base 110 has coupler 115 that couples to container 130 to drive shaft 152 during operation, Fig. 1) and including a mixing tool removably arranged in a bottom region thereof (chopping blade 800 for chopping food in a bottom 139 of the container 130, Fig. 1,8,11), the mixing tool being configured for mixing and/or chopping a food (chopping blade 800 being configured for chopping food, Fig. 1), the food preparation vessel being configured to receive the vessel with the chopping attachment arranged on or relative to the vessel (lid 120 with disc 140 being configured to be received with container 130, Fig. 1), wherein the vessel is configured as an attachment for arrangement in the food preparation vessel (lid 120 is configured as an attachment to container 130, Fig. 1).
Kolar does not disclose a control unit configured to set a target parameter of a chopping process of a food by means of the chopping tool, taking into account provided information.
Frielinghaus teaches a control unit configured to set a target parameter of a chopping process of a food by means of the chopping tool, taking into account provided information (the control unit is configured such that a process parameter for food preparation is automatically adjusted when the control unit has determined, based on the sensor signal, that a predetermined chopping state of the food has been reached, col 3, lines 5-10).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Kolar and Frielinghaus before him or her, to modify the control unit of Kolar to include the control unit and sensor of Frielinghaus because combination allows for effective and automatic chopping/blending in a food preparation apparatus.
Kolar and Frielinghaus does not teach wherein the chopping tool has a distance of at least 10 cm from a bottom of the vessel, the distance being measured between a lowest point of the bottom and a lowest point of the chopping tool. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use the chopping tool of Kolar and Frielinghaus, since it has been held by the courts that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). The dimensions as claimed are there so that chopped foods can fall (paragraph 0032, lines 1-5). Kolar discloses disc 140 distanced from the bottom 139 of container 130 (Fig. 1). Both the claimed invention and prior art are directed to chopping foods and therefore would work the same.
With regards to claim 2, Frielinghaus teaches wherein the food preparation apparatus comprises a heating element for heating a food in the food preparation vessel (heating member 9 for heating the food 5, Fig. 1), a drive shaft for rotating the mixing tool and an electric motor for driving the drive shaft (tool 5 having a shaft driven by electric motor, col 7, lines 31-34).
With regards to claim 3, Frielinghaus teaches wherein the target parameter is a target cutting speed (process parameter for food preparation is a rotary speed of the tool, col 3, lines 10-12).
With regards to claim 4, Frielinghaus teaches wherein the control unit is connected or connectable to a database and is configured to take a content of the database into account in addition to the provided information for setting the target parameter (the control unit may access a selected recipe for this purpose, or the user may set the monitoring threshold in accordance with the recipe, col 3, lines 56-59).
With regards to claim 5, Frielinghaus teaches a sensor and the control unit is configured to set the target parameter taking into account a sensor signal of the sensor (the control unit is configured such that an indication is outputted to the user when the control unit has determined, based on the sensor signal, that a predetermined chopping state of the food has been reached, col 3, lines 5-8).
With regards to claim 6, Frielinghaus teaches wherein a sensor is provided for detecting at least one of a compressive force exerted on a part of the food preparation apparatus and a weight of a chopped food (one sensor 3a, 3b, 3c for weight determination is integrated into each of the support members 6a, 6b, 6c, by means of which, consequently, the total weight of the food preparation appliance 1, col 8, lines 23-26).
With regards to claim 8, Frielinghaus teaches wherein that the food preparation apparatus is configured to influence a rotation of the chopping tool on the basis of the target parameter in order to control the chopping process taking into account the information (a process parameter for food preparation is a rotation setting of the tool, the rotary speed of the tool, the activation or deactivation of the tool, the remaining chopping time, a cooking temperature and/or a cooking time, col 3, lines 11-15), wherein the control unit is configured to regulate the rotation of the chopping tool on the basis of the target parameter as well as a detected status information relating to an actual status (detecting a predetermined chopping state of a food in a food preparation pot during the chopping of the former by an, in particular rotatable, tool of a food preparation appliance comprising the food preparation pot, wherein a sensor signal is transmitted by a sensor, in particular for the weight determination of the food in the food preparation pot, to a control unit of the food preparation appliance, and the control unit determines, during the chopping of the food by the tool, whether a predetermined chopping state of the food has been reached, based on the sensor signal, col 6, lines 25-30).
With regards to claim 9, Frielinghaus teaches wherein the control unit is configured to access a characteristic curve and to take the characteristic curve into account in addition to the provided information for setting the target parameter (in the case of the measured curves K2, K3 and K4, when the control unit 7 determined that the predetermined chopping state had been reached after they had dropped below the threshold value M2, i.e. after the first measured point smaller than M2, the tool 5 was stopped for the period d, col 10, lines 26-30).
With regards to claim 10, Frielinghaus teaches wherein the control unit is configured to output information relating to the target parameter to a user via an output device (the control unit 7 can output a corresponding indication to the user via a display 18 and optionally control the drive unit for stopping the tool 5, col 8, lines 47-50).
With regards to claim 11, Frielinghaus teaches wherein the control unit is configured to receive an input of a user received via an input device as information and to set the target parameter on the basis of the received input (the control unit 7 can access the monitoring threshold, which was set by the user or prescribed by a digital recipe, col 10, lines 2-4).
With regards to claim 12, Frielinghaus teaches wherein the control unit is configured to output guidance information to a user via an output device (the control unit 7 can output a corresponding indication to the user via a display 18 and optionally control the drive unit for stopping the tool 5,col 8, lines 45-50), which guidance information serves for guiding the user through at least one of individual preparation and work steps of a food preparation process (the control unit may access a selected recipe for this purpose, or the user may set the monitoring threshold in accordance with the recipe, col 3, lines 56-59).
With regards to claim 13, Kolar discloses wherein the chopping tool is rotatably arranged in a housing part (disc 140 is rotabably arranged on shaft 150 inside of container 150, Fig. 1), that the food preparation apparatus comprises a cover for covering the housing part with an opening for inserting food to be chopped (lid 120 for covering a top portion of container 130 and having chute 124 for inserting food, Fig. 1), and that the chopping tool is arranged or arrangeable such that foods inserted through the opening are collected in the vessel after passing the chopping tool (food put through chute 124 is chopped by disc 140 to container 130, Fig. 1).
With regards to claim 20, Kolar discloses a method for chopping a food (method of operating a blending system 100, Fig. 1), the method comprising providing a food preparation apparatus including a vessel (blending system 100 including a lid 120 having a chute 124, Fig. 1) and a chopping attachment having a rotatable chopping tool for chopping foods (providing a disc 140 rotatable about a shaft 150, Fig. 1), arranging the chopping attachment having the chopping tool relative to the vessel in such a way that after chopping by means of the chopping tool a food falls downwards due to gravity, to be collected in the vessel (arranging disc 140 being configured such that wherein the disc 140 is arranged relative lid 120 in such a way that, food is pushed through chute 124 of lid 120 towards the disc 140 for food to fall by gravity, Fig. 11), providing a food preparation vessel of the food preparation apparatus for performing a food preparation operation (blender base 110 has coupler 115 that couples to container 130 to drive shaft 152 during operation, Fig. 1), the food preparation vessel including a mixing tool removably arranged in a bottom region thereof (chopping blade 800 for chopping food in a bottom 139 of the container 130, Fig. 1,8,11), the mixing tool being configured for mixing and/or chopping a food (chopping blade 800 being configured for chopping food, Fig. 1), the food preparation vessel being configured to receive the vessel with the chopping attachment arranged on or relative to the vessel (lid 120 with disc 140 being configured to be received with container 130, Fig. 1), wherein the vessel is configured as an attachment for arrangement at least partially within the food preparation vessel (lid 20 is inserted into container 130, Fig. 1).
Kolar does not disclose setting a target parameter of a chopping process of a food by means of the chopping tool using a control unit taking into account provided information.
Frielinghaus teaches setting a target parameter of a chopping process of a food by means of the chopping tool using a control unit taking into account provided information (the control unit is configured such that a process parameter for food preparation is automatically adjusted when the control unit has determined, based on the sensor signal, that a predetermined chopping state of the food has been reached, col 3, lines 5-10).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Kolar and Frielinghaus before him or her, to modify the control unit of Kolar to include the control unit and sensor of Frielinghaus because combination allows for effective and automatic chopping/blending in a food preparation apparatus.
Kolar and Frielinghaus does not teach wherein the chopping tool has a distance of at least 10 cm from a bottom of the vessel, the distance being measured between a lowest point of the bottom and a lowest point of the chopping tool. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use the chopping tool of Kolar and Frielinghaus, since it has been held by the courts that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). The dimensions as claimed are there so that chopped foods can fall (paragraph 0032, lines 1-5). Kolar discloses disc 140 distanced from the bottom 139 of container 130 (Fig. 1). Both the claimed invention and prior art are directed to chopping foods and therefore would work the same.
With regards to claim 21, Kolar discloses wherein the vessel being configured to be positioned on the food preparation vessel from above (container 130 is attached to blender base 110 from above by coupler 115, Fig. 1).
With regards to claim 22, Kolar discloses wherein the vessel is configured to be locked in place and released manually (container 130 is locked to base 110 by coupler 115, Fig. 1).
With regards to claim 23, Kolar discloses wherein the vessel is configured as an attachment in the form of a cover for the food preparation vessel (container 130 covers an upper part of base 110, Fig. 1).
With regards to claim 24, Kolar discloses wherein the vessel has a centrally and vertically extending opening through which a drive shaft of the food preparation apparatus passes to drive the chopping tool (shaft 152 attaches to disc 140, Fig. 1).
With regards to claim 25, Kolar discloses a food preparation apparatus (blending system 100, Fig. 1), the apparatus comprising an electric motor (housing 111 houses a motor, paragraph 0038, lines 3-4),a vessel (lid 120 with a chute 124, Fig.1), a chopping attachment arranged relative to the vessel (disc 140 arranged relative to lid 120, Fig. 1, Fig. 9), the chopping attachment comprising a rotatable chopping tool for chopping foods (disc 140 for chopping food, Fig. 1, Fig. 9), the chopping attachment is arranged or arrangeable relative to a vessel in such a way that, after chopping by means of the chopping tool, a food falls downwards due to gravity to be collected in the vessel (disc 140 is placed on top of shaft 150 which is a distance from bottom 139 of container 130 and allows foodstuff chopped by disc 140 to fall to bottom 139, Fig. 1), a mixing tool for mixing and/or chopping a food in a bottom region of a food preparation vessel of the food preparation apparatus (chopping blade 800 for chopping food in a bottom 139 of the container 130, Fig. 1,8,11), a drive shaft for rotating the mixing tool (system 100 may be operatively attachable with a chopping blade 800 which would be shaft 150, Fig. 1, Fig. 8), the drive shaft being driven by the electric motor (shaft 150 is driven by motor in housing 111, Fig. 1), and an adapter for rotationally fixed connection of the chopping tool with one of the drive shaft and the mixing tool for rotating the chopping tool (coupler 115 is connected to the bottom 139 of container 130 to rotate shaft 150, Fig. 1), a food preparation vessel for performing a food preparation operation and including a mixing tool removably arranged in a bottom region thereof (chopping blade 800 for chopping food in a bottom 139 of the container 130, Fig. 1,8,11), the mixing tool being configured for mixing and/or chopping a food (chopping blade 800 being configured for chopping food, Fig. 1), the food preparation vessel being configured to receive the vessel with the chopping attachment arranged on or relative to the vessel (lid 120 with disc 140 being configured to be received with container 130, Fig. 1), wherein the vessel is configured as an attachment for arrangement at least partially within the food preparation vessel (lid 120 is configured as an attachment for arrangement at least partially within the container 130, Fig. 1).
Kolar does not disclose a control unit configured to set a target parameter of a chopping process of a food by means of the chopping tool, taking into account provided information.
Frielinghaus teaches a control unit configured to set a target parameter of a chopping process of a food by means of the chopping tool, taking into account provided information (the control unit is configured such that a process parameter for food preparation is automatically adjusted when the control unit has determined, based on the sensor signal, that a predetermined chopping state of the food has been reached, col 3, lines 5-10).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Kolar and Frielinghaus before him or her, to modify the control unit of Kolar to include the control unit and sensor of Frielinghaus because combination allows for effective and automatic chopping/blending in a food preparation apparatus.
Kolar and Frielinghaus does not teach wherein the chopping tool has a distance of at least 10 cm from a bottom of the vessel, the distance being measured between a lowest point of the bottom and a lowest point of the chopping tool. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use the chopping tool of Kolar and Frielinghaus, since it has been held by the courts that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). The dimensions as claimed are there so that chopped foods can fall (paragraph 0032, lines 1-5). Kolar discloses disc 140 distanced from the bottom 139 of container 130 (Fig. 1). Both the claimed invention and prior art are directed to chopping foods and therefore would work the same.
With regards to claim 26, Frielinghaus teaches wherein the vessel includes a heating element mounted in the food preparation vessel (heating member 9 in the food preparation pot 2, Fig. 1), a drive shaft rotationally coupled to the mixing tool (drive shaft 16 coupled to tool 5, Fig. 1), and an electric motor configured to drive the drive shaft (electric motor drives tool 5 via drive shaft 16, col 7, lines 32-35).
Claim(s) 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kolar and Frielinghaus as applied to claim 6 above, in view of Tong (DE 202012005844).
With regards to claim 7, Kolar and Frielinghaus does not teach wherein the control unit is configured to determine a fill level in the vessel based on the sensor signal.
Tong teaches wherein the control unit is configured to determine a fill level in the vessel based on the sensor signal (control unit is connected to a sensor for a low level 28, a sensor for a high level 32 and a cover sensor 34 on the container body 18, Fig. 2).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Kolar, Frielinghaus and Tong before him or her, to modify the food preparation apparatus of Kolar and Frielinghaus to include the level sensors of Tong because combination provides a food preparation apparatus with a safety feature that accounts for food level in order to avoid hazards from under or overfilling.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/17/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants’ argument: Applicant argues that claims should not be interpreted under 112 (f) and rejected under 112.
Examiners response: Heating element of claim 2 has been interpreted under 112(f). When the claim limitation does not use the term "means," examiners should determine whether the presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) does not apply is overcome. The presumption may be overcome if the claim limitation uses a generic placeholder (a term that is simply a substitute for the term "means"). The following is a list of non-structural generic placeholders that may invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f): "mechanism for," "module for," "device for," "unit for," "component for," "element for," "member for," "apparatus for," "machine for," or "system for." Welker Bearing Co., v. PHD, Inc., 550 F.3d 1090, 1096, 89 USPQ2d 1289, 1293-94 (Fed. Cir. 2008); Mass. Inst. of Tech. v. Abacus Software, 462 F.3d 1344, 1354, 80 USPQ2d 1225, 1228 (Fed. Cir. 2006); Personalized Media, 161 F.3d at 704, 48 USPQ2d at 1886–87; Mas-Hamilton Group v. LaGard, Inc., 156 F.3d 1206, 1214-1215, 48 USPQ2d 1010, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 1998). The term “heating element” has the generic placeholder of “element” and is only modified with a non-structural limitation of “heating”. Therefore the term “heating element” is interpreted under 112(f).
Applicants argument: Applicant argues against the 112 rejections of the last office action.
Examiners response: “Heating element” is still held because it has been interpreted under 112 6th and has not been described in the written specification with any type of structure.
Applicants argument: Applicant argues the prior art does not disclose or teach the amended features of claim 1.
Examiners response: Applicant has amended claim 1 to include “a food preparation vessel for preforming a food preparation operation and including a mixing tool removably arranged in a bottom region thereof, the mixing tool being configured for mixing and/or chopping a food”. Kolar discloses a food preparation vessel for preforming a food preparation operation (blender base 110 has coupler 115 that couples to container 130 to drive shaft 152 during operation, Fig. 1) and including a mixing tool removably arranged in a bottom region thereof (chopping blade 800 for chopping food in a bottom 139 of the container 130, Fig. 1,8,11), the mixing tool being configured for mixing and/or chopping a food (chopping blade 800 being configured for chopping food, Fig. 1).
Applicants argument: Applicant argues the prior art does not disclose or teach the amended features of claim 20.
Examiners response: Applicant has amended claim 20 to include “the food preparation vessel including a mixing tool removably arranged in a bottom region thereof, the mixing tool being configured for mixing and/or chopping a food, the food preparation vessel being configured to receive the vessel with the chopping attachment arranged on or relative to the vessel”. Kolar discloses the food preparation vessel including a mixing tool removably arranged in a bottom region thereof (chopping blade 800 for chopping food in a bottom 139 of the container 130, Fig. 1,8,11), the mixing tool being configured for mixing and/or chopping a food (chopping blade 800 being configured for chopping food, Fig. 1), the food preparation vessel being configured to receive the vessel with the chopping attachment arranged on or relative to the vessel (lid 120 with disc 140 being configured to be received with container 130, Fig. 1).
Applicants argument: Applicant argues the prior art does not disclose or teach the amended features of claim 25.
Examiners response: Applicant has amended claim 25 to include “a food preparation vessel for performing a food preparation operation and including a mixing tool removably arranged in a bottom region thereof, the mixing tool being configured for mixing and/or chopping a food, the food preparation vessel being configured to receive the vessel with the chopping attachment arranged on or relative to the vessel, wherein the vessel is configured as an attachment for arrangement at least partially within the food preparation vessel”. Kolar discloses a food preparation vessel for performing a food preparation operation and including a mixing tool removably arranged in a bottom region thereof (chopping blade 800 for chopping food in a bottom 139 of the container 130, Fig. 1,8,11), the mixing tool being configured for mixing and/or chopping a food (chopping blade 800 being configured for chopping food, Fig. 1), the food preparation vessel being configured to receive the vessel with the chopping attachment arranged on or relative to the vessel (lid 120 with disc 140 being configured to be received with container 130, Fig. 1), wherein the vessel is configured as an attachment for arrangement at least partially within the food preparation vessel (lid 120 is configured as an attachment for arrangement at least partially within the container 130, Fig. 1).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS JOHN WARD whose telephone number is (571)270-1786. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7am - 4pm.
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, STEVEN CRABB can be reached on 5712705095. 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.
/THOMAS J WARD/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/EDWARD F LANDRUM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761