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 Objections
Claim 41 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “a portion of the coupling is position radially outward from the second end” includes a minor grammatical error and should recite “positioned.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-3, 5-6, 8, 10 and 32-41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 9,848,738 B2 to Audette in view of US 2,284,155 to Landgraf in further view of US 2004/0046075 A1 to Gursel.
Regarding claim 1, Audette teaches an attachment 20 configured for use with a food processing system 10 (Abstract; Fig. 1), comprising:
a container 20 configurable with a food processing base of the food processing system (Fig. 1; Col. 4, Lns. 3-20), the container having a first end, a second end, and a sidewall extending between the first end and the second end to define a processing chamber (Figs. 1, 6 and 17), the sidewall having an outer peripheral surface extending between the first end and the second end (Figs. 1, 6 and 17); and
at least one processing tool 400, 412, 420, 430 receivable within said processing chamber (Figs. 18-22; Col. 11, Lns. 6-18), said processing tool being rotatable about an axis (Figs. 18-22; Col. 11, Lns. 6-18);
wherein the peripheral outer surface of the sidewall of the container that defines the processing chamber has a first shape adjacent a first end 30 of the processing chamber (Figs. 1 and 17 show that the top of the container, i.e., the first end, has a square or rectangular shape);
wherein said at least one processing tool comprises at least a first and a second interchangeable processing tool (Figs. 18-22; Col. 11, Lns. 6-18), said first interchangeable processing tool 400 comprising six blades 406 arranged in three opposing pairs, each opposing pair spaced apart along a first length of a first shaft of the first interchangeable processing tool (Figs. 18-19 show that the first interchangeable tool 400 includes 3 pairs of blades 406 that are spaced apart along a length of the shaft).
Audette fails to explicitly teach the peripheral outer surface of the sidewall of the container that defines the processing chamber has a distinct second shape adjacent a second end of said container, said second shape being circular, wherein when the first interchangeable processing tool is received within the container in position for rotation, the six blades comprise: at least a first blade positionable within a portion of said container having said first shape, at least a second blade positionable within a transitional portion of said container between said first shape and said second shape, and at least a third blade positionable within a portion of said container having said second shape, and said second interchangeable processing tool comprising four blades arranged in two opposing pairs, each opposing pair spaced apart along a second length of a second shaft of the second interchangeable processing tool. Audette teaches the processing tools are interchangeable (Figs. 18-22), however none of the other disclosed processing tools have four blades in two opposing pairs.
Landgraf teaches an attachment 10 for a food processor (Fig. 1) having a container 10 configurable with a food processing base 11 (Figs. 1 and 6-7), the container having a processing chamber defined by a sidewall with an outer peripheral surface (Figs. 1, 3-5 and7), wherein the peripheral outer surface of the sidewall of the container that defines the processing chamber has a second shape adjacent a second end of said container (Figs. 1, 3-5 and 7), said second shape being circular (Figs. 1, 3-5 and 7; P. 1, Right Column, Lines 32-50; the cross-section of the bottom, i.e., section 12, is circular).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to substitute the second end of the container of the processing chamber and corresponding shape of the second end of Audette with the second end of the container and shape on the base of Landgraf as those components and their functions were well known in the art and a person of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted each of these known elements for another with the predictable result of providing a processing chamber configuration to properly and efficiently mix or blend the contents of the processing chamber. It is noted that modifying the processing chamber of Audette to include the second end of the processing chamber of Landgraf results in the second end of the processing chamber having a distinct second shape that is circular.
The combination of Audette and Landgraff teaches the first processing tool having six blades arranged in three opposing pairs positioned within a container with a sidewall defining a first shape adjacent a first end and a distinct second shape adjacent a first end, but the combination is silent regarding the position of the pairs of blades relative to the shape of the container. It is noted that Audette teaches the first processing tool including a shaft extending from the bottom of the container to the lid at the top of the container (Audette, Figs. 18-19; Col. 11, Lns. 30-45; the blade assembly 400 has a first end 402 is inserted into a bushing 410 on the lid 40 and the second end 408 engages the bottom of the container 40). However, because there is no evidence that the claimed position of the blades provides a new and unexpected result (Para. [0065] merely states that the blades can be positioned in the claimed locations of the container with no discussion of any benefit or new and unexpected results), and because the principle operation of modified Audette would remain unchanged, it would have been obvious to an ordinary artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the first processing tool of Audette to have at least a first blade positionable within a portion of said container having said first shape, at least a second blade positionable within a transitional portion of said container between said first shape and said second shape, and at least a third blade positionable within a portion of said container having said second shape when the processing tool is in position for rotation, since it has been held that where the principal operation of the prior art device would remain unchanged the mere reversal or rearrangement of elements taught in the prior art is an obvious modification as it would amount to nothing more than a matter of engineering choice arrived at through routine experimentation with processing tool blade placement (MPEP § 2144.04 VI).
Gursel teaches an attachment for a food processor (Abstract) including a processing tool comprising four blades arranged in two opposing pairs, each opposing pair spaced apart along a second length of a second shaft of the second interchangeable processing tool (Fig. 3; Para. [0015]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to substitute one of the blades 412, 420, 430 in the attachment of Audette with the blade of Gursel as those components and their functions were well known in the art and a person of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted each of these known elements for another with the predictable result of providing a processing tool in the attachment for mixing, stirring or chopping material.
Regarding claim 2, modified Audette teaches the attachment of claim 1 (Fig. 1), wherein a cross-sectional area of said first end of said container is greater than a cross-sectional area of said second end of said processing chamber (Figs. 5 and 17 show the cross section of the first configuration, i.e., the shape at the top of the container, is larger than the cross-sectional area of the second configuration, i.e., the shape at the bottom of the container, and the second end of Conti is included in the container of Audette which is also shown as being smaller than the first end of the container, as shown in Figs. 1-2).
Regarding claim 3, modified Audette teaches the attachment of claim 1 (Fig. 1), wherein said first shape is one of rectellipse, and squircle (Figs. 5 and 17 show the first configuration has an approximately squaricle shape, i.e., a square with rounded corners).
Regarding claim 6, modified Audette teaches the attachment of claim 5 (Fig. 1), wherein a distance between said first blade and a sidewall of said processing chamber is less than a distance between said second blade and said sidewall of said processing chamber (Figs. 6 and 17-19; as shown in Figs. 18-19, the blades 406 extend an equal distance from the center of tool 400 and therefore the distance between lowermost blade 406 and the sidewall of the chamber is less than a distance between the second blade 406, i.e., the blade above the lowermost blade, and the sidewall of the chamber because the width of the chamber expands from the bottom to the top, as shown in Figs. 6 and 17).
Regarding claim 8, modified Audette teaches the attachment of claim 7 (Fig. 1), wherein said first interchangeable processing tool 400 is operable to perform a chopping operation (Figs. 18-19; Col. 11, Lns. 19-29) and said second interchangeable processing tool is operable to perform a mixing operation (Gursel, Fig. 3; Para. [0015]; modified Audette includes the processing tool of Gursel, which may be used in a mixer).
Regarding claim 10, Audette teaches the attachment of claim 8 (Fig. 1), wherein said first interchangeable processing tool 400 is rotatable about said axis at a first speed and said second interchangeable processing tool is rotatable about said axis at a second speed (Figs. 1, 6, and 17-22; the first and second processing tools are capable of rotating at different speeds depending on the food processor the attachment is connected to and the speed at which the motor of the processer rotates the processing tool).
Regarding claim 33, modified Audette teaches the attachment of claim 1 (Fig. 1), wherein said attachment is operable in both a food processing mode and a blending mode (Col. 4, Lns. 13-20; the attachment is operable to process or blend food depending on the base it is attached to).
Regarding claim 34, modified Audette teaches the attachment of claim 1 (Fig. 1), wherein said first interchangeable processing tool 400 is rotatable about said axis at at least 300 rpm (Figs. 1, 6, and 17-22; the first processing tool is capable of rotating at at least 300 rpm depending on the food processor the attachment is connected to and the speed at which the motor of the processer rotates the processing tool).
Regarding claim 35, modified Audette teaches the attachment of claim 1 (Fig. 1), wherein said first interchangeable processing tool 400 is rotatable about said axis at at least 500 rpm (Figs. 1, 6, and 17-22; the first processing tool is capable of rotating at at least 500 rpm depending on the food processor the attachment is connected to and the speed at which the motor of the processer rotates the processing tool).
Regarding claim 36, modified Audette teaches the attachment of claim 1 (Fig. 1), wherein said first interchangeable processing tool 400 is rotatable about said axis at between about 1000 rpm and 1500 rpm (Figs. 1, 6, and 17-22; the first processing tool is capable of rotating at between 1000 and 1500 rpm depending on the food processor the attachment is connected to and the speed at which the motor of the processer rotates the processing tool).
Regarding claim 37, modified Audette teaches the attachment of claim 1 (Fig. 1), wherein said first interchangeable processing tool 400 is rotatable about said axis at between about 5000 rpm and 6000 rpm (Figs. 1, 6, and 17-22; the first processing tool is capable of rotating at between 5000 and 6000 rpm depending on the food processor the attachment is connected to and the speed at which the motor of the processer rotates the processing tool).
Regarding claim 38, modified Audette teaches the attachment of claim 1 (Fig. 1), wherein said second interchangeable processing tool is rotatable about said axis at at least 1000 rpm (Gursel, Fig. 3; modified Audette including a second interchangeable processing tool of Gursel, and the second processing tool is capable of rotating at at least 1000 rpm depending on the food processor the attachment is connected to and the speed at which the motor of the processer rotates the processing tool).
Regarding claim 39, modified Audette teaches the attachment of claim 1 (Fig. 1), wherein said second interchangeable processing tool is rotatable about said axis at at least 3000 rpm (Gursel, Fig. 3; modified Audette including a second interchangeable processing tool of Gursel, and the second processing tool is capable of rotating at at least 3000 rpm depending on the food processor the attachment is connected to and the speed at which the motor of the processer rotates the processing tool).
Regarding claim 40, modified Audette teaches the attachment of claim 1 (Fig. 1), wherein the sidewall of the container extends beyond the second end of the container to define a coupling chamber (Figs. 1 and 6-7; as best seen in Figs. 6 and 7, the sidewall extends beyond the second end of the container to define a coupling chamber, i.e., the space defined by the walls below the processing chamber shown in Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 41, modified Audette teaches the attachment of claim 40 (Fig. 1), wherein a portion of the coupling chamber is position radially outward from the second end of the processing chamber (Figs. 1 and 6-7; as best seen in Fig. 7, portions of the walls of the coupling chamber extend radially outward from the second end of the processing chamber).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments and remarks dated October 3, 2025, with respect to the rejections of claims 1-3, 5-6, 8, 10 and 32-39 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Landgraf fails to explicitly teach the peripheral outer surface of the sidewall of the container that defines the processing chamber has a second shape adjacent the second end of the container is circular. Remarks, PP. 6-8. In particular, Applicant argues that Landgraf only teaches the bowl has a frusto conical lower portion, which does not teach the shape of the peripheral outer surface. Id. This argument has been carefully considered and it is not persuasive because it is not commensurate in scope with the claims. Claim 1 recites “wherein the peripheral outer surface of the sidewall that defines the processing chamber has a first shape adjacent a first end of the processing chamber and a distinct second shape adjacent a second end of the processing chamber” (emphasis added), i.e., the peripheral outer surface of the sidewall is the surface that defines the processing chamber. Applicant appears to be arguing that the claims are directed to the shape of the sidewalls that define the exterior of the attachment, however the claim explicitly recites that the peripheral outer surface of the sidewalls define the processing chamber. Landgraf teaches the surface of the sidewalls that define the processing chamber having a frusto-conical, i.e., circular, shape at the second end (Landgraf, Figs. 1, 3-5 and 7; P. 1, Right Column, Lines 32-50).
Applicant argues that Audette does not teach the first processing tool having blades in the recited positions and that the obviousness rejection is deficient because the rejection does not establish that the function or operation of the device would not be changed. Remarks, PP. 8-10. Applicant also argues that there is no rationale provided to make such a rearrangement of parts and the rejection has improperly placed the burden on applicant to establish a new and unexpected result regarding the placement of the blades. Id. at 9. These arguments have been carefully considered and they are not persuasive. Applicant has argued that the function of the device may be changed because “the device does not function to chop vegetables sufficiently” and points to a discussion in their own specification regarding the shape of the chamber providing “an all-in-one solution with superior blending, chopping, and dough mixing” and eliminating the need for separate vessels for separate operations. Remarks, P. 9 (quoting Para. [0062] of the present application). Applicant appears to be focusing on the function of their own invention and the role of the vessel in that rather than the operation and function of the prior art devices. Audette is directed to a container in which various processing tool configurations may be used to cut, slice, dice, or puree food as well as knead dough (Col. 11, Ln. 53 through Col. 12, Ln. 12). Audette places no restrictions on the size, shape or placement of the blades of the processing tools to serve any one of these functions, and does not highlight the interaction of the blades with the shape of the processing chamber to influence such operations. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that a processing tool configuration may be rearranged to position the blades relative to the processing chamber and the function and operation of the system (e.g., cutting, slicing, dicing, pureeing, or kneading) would be unchanged. To the extent that applicant is arguing that the system could no longer perform any of those functions (rather than the system would not perform those functions in a superior manner), such an argument is attorney argument that lacks any support in the record.
Regarding the establishment of new and unexpected results and providing a rationale to rearrange the parts, MPEP 2144.04 states that “an examiner may utilize legal precedent as a source of supporting rationale when warranted and appropriately supported. In formulating any rejection invoking legal precedent, the examiner must take care to ensure that the rationale is explained and shown to apply to the facts at hand... If the applicant has demonstrated the criticality of a specific limitation, it would not be appropriate to rely solely on case law as the rationale to support an obviousness rejection.” One of the legal precedents as a source of rationale provided is the rearrangement of parts. Thus, the legal precedent is the supporting rationale, and Applicant may demonstrate the criticality of the limitation (i.e., a new and unexpected result) to preclude the rejection from relying solely on a legal precedent as rationale. In the present application, there is not criticality of the specific limitation and therefore the legal precedent regarding rearrangement of parts may be relied upon as a supporting rationale. Further, as discussed on pages 8-9 of the Non-Final Rejection dated June 3, 2025, it would have been obvious to rearrange the blades into the claimed configuration.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 MATTHEW STEPHENS whose telephone number is (571)272-6722. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 930-630.
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, Chris Templeton can be reached on (571)270-1477. 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.
/MATTHEW STEPHENS/Examiner, Art Unit 3725
/Christopher L Templeton/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3725