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 .
Response to Arguments
The objection to claim 12 is withdrawn.
The rejection of claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed October 22nd, 2025, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that neither WO-Astegno nor Martin discloses an immersion blender having a bell that surrounds at least a portion of the blades and as such neither reference can be reasonably read to teach or suggest the ball-and-socket motion recited in the noted claims or provide any motivation or guidance to modify Quinesser, Boozer, Lin, and/or Astegno in such manner (Remarks, page 9). The Examiner respectfully disagrees as one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In this case, Quinesser discloses a bell that surrounds at least a portion of the blades (Quinesser, Fig. 1) and at least WO-Astegno discloses structure which could be incorporated into the blender and container of Quinesser to facilitate the bell of the immersion blender to rotate on the concaved portion in a ball and socket manner even with the additional limitation (to claim 1) of the hemispherical apex in the container as explained further in the new ground of rejection of claim 10 below. Thus, the argument is not persuasive.
Applicant’s other arguments with respect to claims 1-12 and 14-21 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Quinesser (previously attached translation of DE 202018105454) in view of Boozer et al. (US 20180168403), Brockbank (US 20020002907), Lin et al. (US 20170224168), Astegno (US 6193181), Akao (US 4639386) and Brunner (US 20170340170).
Regarding claim 1, Quinesser discloses a blending container (mixing container 120) configured for use with an immersion blender (the mixing container is for use with hand mixer 110, Fig. 3, para. [0001]) as shown below:
PNG
media_image1.png
969
882
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Quinesser discloses the blending container comprises a closed end; at least one sidewall that extends from a periphery of the closed end, wherein the closed end and at least one sidewall (shown above) form a cavity (the internal volume); an open end opposite the closed end (shown above), wherein the open end is configured to receive foodstuff and at least a portion of the immersion blender (para. [0037], Fig. 3); wherein the at least one sidewall further comprises at least one flute extending from a first point at or near the closed end towards the open end of the blending container; and wherein the closed end comprises (2) a concaved portion that extends from the periphery of the closed end into the cavity of the blending container (Fig. 3, shown above); such that contact points configured to engage a bell of the immersion blender are formed at a location where the periphery abuts the concaved portion (contact points are located very near an inflection point between the convex periphery and concave portion, Fig. 3, as shown above).
Quinesser does not disclose a flute.
However, Boozer et al. teaches a blending container (container 120) having a sidewall (wall 126), a closed end (bottom 430), and an open end (opening 122) and Boozer et al. further teaches wherein the at least one sidewall further comprises at least one flute (flute 428) extending from a first point at or near the closed end towards the open end of the blending container (Fig. 4) or Brockbank discloses a mixing vessel (abstract, vessel 100) which could be used with an immersion blender and Brockbank further teaches flutes (flutes 203, 204, para. [0032], Fig. 1, Fig.2) in the vessel extending from a first point at or near a closed end (base 102).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Quinesser wherein the at least one sidewall further comprises at least one flute extending from a first point at or near the closed end towards the open end of the blending container.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to include flutes in order to disrupt flow and increase blending efficiency (Boozer et al., para. [0036]) or to facilitate handling and pouring (Brockbank, para. [0032]).
Quinesser does not disclose the periphery is a flat surface.
However, Lin et al. teaches a blender container (container 3) having a flat region in the periphery and a concave region (Fig. 3) as shown below:
PNG
media_image2.png
372
644
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Quinesser wherein the closed end comprises a periphery having a flat surface.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute one known shape for a container bottom (Quinesser, convex periphery transitioning to concave, Fig. 3) for another known shape (Lin et al., periphery having a flat surface transitioning to concave) and thereby achieve the predictable result of providing a resting surface for a container. See In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). Otherwise, the person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use a flat periphery in order to increase the contact area with a resting surface to provide for a more stable configuration (i.e. less prone to being accidentally tipped over).
The combined teachings of the above-cited references do not explicitly state wherein contact points are formed at a location where the periphery, being a flat surface, abuts the concaved portion.
It is noted that in the combined teaching of the above-cited references, the blender could be either held vertically or at angles such that at least one surface of the bell would be engaged with the bottom of the container at a location where the flat periphery meets the concave portion to establish multiple “contact points” either by holding the blender vertically (multiple contact points in one position) or otherwise at various angles (multiple contact points at different angled positions) to thereby meet the limitation.
Further, Astegno et al. discloses a blender container (container 1) for use with a blender component which enters from the open end of the container (working assembly 2) and has a pedestal (pedestal 7) similar to a bell and Astegno et al. teaches the container has contact points at a location where the surface transitions to a concave shape (Fig. 1) as shown below:
PNG
media_image3.png
496
1340
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Quinesser wherein contact points which are configured to engage the bell of the immersion blender are formed at a location where the periphery abuts the concaved portion.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to size the concave portion such that it forms contact points near the transition between the flat surface periphery (Lin et al., Fig. 3, shown above) and the concave surface in order to provide for firmly anchoring the blender on a vertical axis of rotation (Astegno et al., col. 2, lines 23-24).
Quinesser does not disclose a hemispherical apex provided centrally on the concave-portion.
However, Brunner discloses a blender container (container 40) and further teaches wherein a hemispherical apex is provided centrally on a concaved portion, the hemispherical apex extending beyond the concaved portion and opening in a same direction as the concaved portion (Fig. 4 and Fig. 10) as shown below:
PNG
media_image4.png
568
1028
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Further, Akao discloses a container which is analogous art at least because it is reasonably pertinent to the problem of selecting manufacturing techniques for containers and Akao teaches a hemisphere is formed at the gate location (col. 3, lines 59-62) during injection molding (col. 3, line 55, Fig. 1) as shown below:
PNG
media_image5.png
365
433
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Quinesser by manufacturing the container by injection molding (Akao, col. 3, lines 55-56) wherein the resulting structure includes a hemispherical apex provided centrally on the concaved portion, the hemispherical apex extending beyond the concaved portion and opening in a same direction as the concaved portion (Brunner, Fig. 10).
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to utilize injection molding, resulting in a hemispherical apex, in order to facilitate mass production of the container.
Regarding claim 2, Quinesser discloses wherein the at least one sidewall has a first circumference near the closed end and a second circumference near the open end, wherein the first circumference is different than the second circumference (the sidewall is cylindrical and converges toward the closed end, Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 3, Quinesser discloses wherein the first circumference of the at least one sidewall near the closed end is smaller than the second circumference of the at least one sidewall near the open end (the sidewall is cylindrical and converges toward the closed end, Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 5, Quinesser discloses wherein the at least one sidewall tapers outwardly toward the open end of the blending container from the closed end.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Quinesser (previously attached translation of DE 202018105454) in view of Boozer et al. (US 20180168403), Brockbank (US 20020002907), Lin et al. (US 20170224168), Astegno (US 6193181), Akao (US 4639386) and Brunner (US 20170340170) as applied to claim 1 above and in further view of Hamel et al. (US 20210245937).
Regarding claim 4, Quinesser does not disclose the sidewall tapers inwardly toward the closed end of the blending container from a shoulder.
However, Hamel et al. teaches a container (bottle) having a sidewall (sidewall 110) and which could be used with an immersion blender and wherein the sidewall tapers inwardly toward the closed end of the blending container from a shoulder (shoulder 108) of the at least one sidewall.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Quinesser wherein the at least one sidewall tapers inwardly toward the closed end of the blending container from a shoulder of the at least one sidewall.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to select known shapes of containers to produce the predictable result of facilitating handling of the container. See In re Dailey, supra.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Quinesser (previously attached translation of DE 202018105454) in view of Boozer et al. (US 20180168403), Brockbank (US 20020002907), Lin et al. (US 20170224168), Astegno (US 6193181), Akao (US 4639386) and Brunner (US 20170340170) as applied to claim 1 above and in further view of Silvestrini et al. (attached translation of WO 2020108816).
Regarding claim 6, Quinesser does not disclose flutes.
However, Silvestrini et al. teaches a blending container which could be used with an immersion blender (hand blender, para. [0138], Fig. 7) and Silvestrini et al. teaches that ribs are used to improve circulation and movement of food and commonly extend from the bottom of the container to the maximum filling level (para. [0036]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Quinesser wherein the at least one flute extends toward a second point on the at least one sidewall that indicates a predetermined capacity of the blending container.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to extend the flute to a maximum fill level as a known configuration for a blending container which improves circulation and movement of food within the container (Silvestrini et al., para. [0036]).
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Quinesser (previously attached translation of DE 202018105454) in view of Boozer et al. (US 20180168403), Brockbank (US 20020002907), Lin et al. (US 20170224168), Astegno (US 6193181), Akao (US 4639386) and Brunner (US 20170340170) as applied to claim 1 above and in further view of Safont et al. (US 20030132236).
Regarding claim 7, Quinesser does not disclose flutes.
However, Boozer et al. who is relied upon for claim 1 to teach flutes also teaches the at least one flute includes a depression that extends from at least one sidewall toward a center axis of the blending container.
PNG
media_image6.png
418
1029
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Further, Safont et al. also discloses a blending container (container 1) for an immersion blender (stick blender 57) having flutes (Fig. 4) and further teaches wherein the at least one flute includes a depression that extends from the at least one sidewall toward a center axis of the blending container (Fig. 2 and Fig. 4) as shown below:
PNG
media_image7.png
637
790
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Quinesser to further include wherein the at least one flute includes a depression that extends from the at least one sidewall toward a center axis of the blending container.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use a flute configuration in a blending container which extends closer to the blades (Boozer et al., Abstract, para. [0043]) which is known to disrupt flow and force material back into the blades (Boozer et al., para. [0036]).
Regarding claim 8, Quiensser does not expressly disclose a lip.
However, Safont et al. discloses a blending container (container 1) for an immersion blender (stick blender 57) having flutes (Fig. 4) and further teaches a protruding lip at the open end (open end 26) of the blending container that is configured to engage with a lid (lid 4, Fig. 1) as shown below:
PNG
media_image8.png
354
1204
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Quinesser wherein the container further comprises a protruding lip at the open end of the blending container that is configured to engage with a lid.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include a lid in order to protect the contents of the container from contamination and the person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use a known means for coupling a lid to a container, such as a lip to provide a contact surface.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Quinesser (previously attached translation of DE 202018105454) in view of Boozer et al. (US 20180168403), Brockbank (US 20020002907), Lin et al. (US 20170224168), Astegno (US 6193181), Akao (US 4639386) and Brunner (US 20170340170) as applied to claim 1 above and in further view of Rebordosa et al. (US 20020034121).
Regarding claim 9, Quinesser does not expressly disclose the concave portion is configured to direct foodstuffs. However, it seems the concave portion would function to direct flow along the bottom of the container into the blades of the immersion blender or otherwise the container could be operated such that foodstuff is directed along the bottom of the container as a method of operation of the device. As held in In re Casey, supra., “the manner or method in which such machine is utilized is not germane to the issue of patentability of the machine itself.”
Further, Rebordosa et al. discloses an immersion blender (hand blender, abstract) wherein the flow into the blade is drawn into the bell from below (as indicated by arrow 32, Fig. 6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Quinesser by using the container with an immersion blender such as the one taught by Rebordosa et al. resulting in flow being drawn along the bottom of the container (concave closed end) whereby the concaved portion functions to direct foodstuff toward a blade of the immersion blender.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to utilize the container with different immersion blenders, such as the blender of Rebordosa et al., to achieve the predictable result of blending foodstuff with an immersion blender and resulting in the concave portion directing foodstuff along the bottom of the container and toward the blade.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Quinesser (previously attached translation of DE 202018105454) in view of Boozer et al. (US 20180168403), Brockbank (US 20020002907), Lin et al. (US 20170224168), Astegno (US 6193181) Akao (US 4639386) and Brunner (US 20170340170) as applied to claim 1 above and in further view of Astegno et al. (previously attached translation of WO 0030516A1) hereinafter “Astegno-WO”.
Regarding claim 10, Quinesser discloses wherein the concaved portion includes additional contact points configured to engage the bell of the immersion blender as shown below:
PNG
media_image9.png
217
458
media_image9.png
Greyscale
It is noted that Quinesser discloses a substantially similar configuration to what is shown in Applicant’s figure 7:
PNG
media_image10.png
298
901
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Insomuch as Quinesser does not expressly describe a ball and socket rotation; Astegno-WO teaches a blending container (container 1) wherein the bottom is configured with a “ball” (pivot 10’ as shown in the embodiment of fig. 7) as shown below:
PNG
media_image11.png
363
687
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Quinesser wherein the hemispherical apex comprises a pivot to assist in positioning the blender which would facilitate a ball and socket rotation such that the concaved portion (containing the ball or apex) is configured to allow the bell of the immersion blender to rotate on the concaved portion in a ball and socket manner.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include a structure to facilitate rotation in order to improve mixing.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Quinesser (previously attached translation of DE 202018105454) in view of Boozer et al. (US 20180168403), Brockbank (US 20020002907), Lin et al. (US 20170224168), Astegno (US 6193181), Akao (US 4639386) and Brunner (US 20170340170) as applied to claim 1 above and in further view of Pappas et al. (US 20160270600) and Astegno et al. (previously attached translation of WO 0030516A1) hereinafter “Astegno-WO”.
Regarding claim 11, Quinesser is silent as to blow molding. However, product-by-process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps. See MPEP 2113. It is deemed that Quinesser discloses the recited structure.
Otherwise, Pappas et al. discloses a mixing container (drink mixer) having rigid structure which is blow molded (Para. [0047]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Quinesser wherein the blending container is blow-molded.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use a known process for making containers.
Assuming, arguendo, that blow molding would not include an injection gate forming an apex as discussed for claim 1 above, WO-Astegno teaches a blending container (container 1) wherein the bottom is configured with a “ball” (pivot 10’ as shown in the embodiment of fig. 7) comprising a hemisphere as shown above for claim 10.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Quinesser by adding a hemispherical apex extending beyond the concave portion.
The person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to include a hemispherical apex in order assist in positioning of the blender bell in the container and to facilitate rotation of the blender to improve mixing.
Assuming, arguendo, that the hemispherical apex of WO-Astegno does not comprise an open apex, Brunner teaches the hemispherical apex extends beyond a concaved portion and opens in a same direction as a concaved portion (Fig. 4, shown above for claim 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Quinesser (in view of WO-Astegno) wherein the hemispherical apex is an open apex.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute one apex shape (WO-Astegno, Fig. 7) for another (closed, Brunner, Fig. 4) to achieve the same result of providing a pivot point at the base of the container for positioning/contacting a shaft. See In re Dailey, supra.
Claims 12 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Quinesser (previously attached translation of DE 202018105454) in view of Boozer et al. (US 20180168403), Brockbank (US 20020002907), Lin et al. (US 20170224168), Astegno (US 6193181), Akao (US 4639386) and Brunner (US 20170340170) as applied to claim 1 above and in further view of Rebordosa et al. (US 20020034121) and Astegno et al. (previously attached translation of WO 0030516A1) hereinafter “Astegno-WO”.
Regarding claim 12, the above cited references for claim 1 disclose a blending system comprising: the blending container of claim 1 (see comments for claim 1 above); and Quinesser further discloses the immersion blender (hand mixer 110) wherein the immersion blender is insertable into the blending container and comprises a blade (para. [0040]) and the bell (Fig. 3) surrounds at least a portion of the blade (Fig. 3).
Quinesser does not expressly disclose the concave portion is configured to direct foodstuffs. However, it seems the concave portion would function to direct flow into the blades of the immersion blender or otherwise Rebordosa et al. discloses an immersion blender (hand blender, abstract) wherein the flow into the blade is drawn into the bell from below (as indicated by arrow 32, Fig. 6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Quinesser by using the container with an immersion blender such as the one taught by Rebordosa et al. resulting in flow being drawn along the bottom of the container (concave closed end) whereby the concaved portion of the closed end directs foodstuff toward the blade of the immersion blender.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to utilize the container with different immersion blenders, such as the blender of Rebordosa et al., resulting in the concave portion directing foodstuff toward the blade and the predictable result of blending foodstuff with an immersion blender.
It is noted that Quinesser discloses a substantially similar configuration (Fig. 3) to what is shown in Applicant’s figure 7 as shown above for claim 10.
Insomuch as Quinesser does not expressly describe a ball and socket rotation; Astegno-WO teaches a blending container (container 1) wherein the bottom is configured with a “ball” (pivot 10’ as shown in the embodiment of fig. 7) as shown above for claim 10.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Quinesser wherein the hemispherical apex comprises a pivot to assist in positioning the blender which would facilitate a ball and socket rotation such that the concaved portion (containing the ball or apex) is configured to allow the bell of the immersion blender to rotate on the concaved portion in a ball and socket manner.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include a structure to facilitate rotation in order to improve mixing.
Regarding claim 21, Quinesser discloses wherein a terminal diameter of the bell differs from an outer diameter of the concaved portion (Fig. 3, the concaved portion extends slightly beyond the bell’s base) as shown below:
PNG
media_image12.png
172
517
media_image12.png
Greyscale
Claims 14 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Quinesser (previously attached translation of DE 202018105454) in view of Lin et al. (US 20170224168), Astegno (US 6193181), Akao (US 4639386) and Brunner (US 20170340170).
Regarding claim 14, Quinesser discloses a blending container (mixing container 120) configured for use with an immersion blender (the mixing container is for use with hand mixer 110, Fig. 3, para. [0001]) as shown above for claim 1.
Quinesser discloses the blending container comprises a bottom surface (Fig. 3, closed end shown above for claim 1) comprising a periphery and a curved portion (concave) extending from the periphery (shown above for claim 1), at least one sidewall (Fig. 3, shown above for claim 1), wherein the at least one sidewall extends from the bottom surface and defines a cavity and wherein the curved portion of the bottom surface extends into the cavity (Fig. 3, shown above for claim 1).
Quinesser does not disclose a flat periphery.
However, Lin et al. teaches a blender container (container 3) having a flat region in the periphery and a curved portion (Fig. 3) as shown below:
PNG
media_image13.png
711
778
media_image13.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Quinesser wherein the bottom surface comprises a flat periphery and a curved portion extending therefrom.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute one known shape for a container bottom (Quinesser, convex periphery transitioning to concave, Fig. 3) for another known shape (Lin et al., periphery having a flat surface transitioning to concave) and thereby achieve the predictable result of providing a resting surface for a container. See In re Dailey, supra. Otherwise, the person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use a flat periphery in order to increase the contact area with the resting surface to provide for a more stable configuration (i.e. less prone to being accidentally tipped over).
The combined teachings of the above-cited references do not explicitly state wherein contact points are formed at a location where the periphery, being a flat surface, abuts the curved portion.
It is noted that in the combined teaching of the above-cited references, the blender could be either held vertically or at an angle such that at least one surface of the bell would be engaged with the bottom of the container at a location where the flat periphery meets the curved portion to establish multiple “contact points” either by holding the blender vertically (multiple contact points in one position) or otherwise at various angles (multiple contact points at different angled positions) to thereby meet the limitation.
Further, Astegno et al. discloses a blender container (container 1) for use with a blender component which enters from the open end of the container (working assembly 2) and has a pedestal (pedestal 7) similar to a bell and Astegno et al. teaches the container has contact points at a location where the surface transitions to concave (Fig. 1) as shown above for claim 1.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Quinesser wherein contact points which are configured to engage the bell of the immersion blender are formed at a location where the flat periphery abuts the curved portion.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to size the concave portion such that it forms contact points at the transition between the flat surface periphery (Lin et al., Fig. 3, shown above) and the concave surface in order to provide for firmly anchoring the blender on a vertical axis of rotation (Astegno et al., col. 2, lines 23-24).
Quinesser discloses an open end, but does not appear to explicitly disclose the open end includes an annular rib and Quinesser does not disclose an annular shoulder.
However, Lin et al. further teaches an open end opposite the bottom surface and including an annular rib (Fig. 3); an annular shoulder (Fig. 3) and Lin et al. also discloses an embodiment wherein the annular shoulder tapers inwardly from the at least one sidewall to the annular rib (Fig. 6) as shown below:
PNG
media_image14.png
345
805
media_image14.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Quinesser wherein the blending container also comprises an annular rib at the open end and an annular shoulder that tapers inwardly from the at least one sidewall to the annular rib.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to select known shapes of blending containers to produce the predictable result of facilitating handling of the container and pouring therefrom. See In re Dailey, supra. The person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include an annular rib in order to mount a container lid.
Quinesser does not disclose a hemispherical apex provided centrally on the curved portion.
However, Brunner discloses a blender container (container 40) and further teaches wherein a hemispherical apex is provided centrally on the curved portion, the hemispherical apex extending beyond the curved portion and opening in a same direction as a curved portion (Fig. 4 and Fig. 10) as shown above for claim 1.
Further, Akao discloses a container which is analogous art at least because it is reasonably pertinent to the problem of selecting manufacturing techniques for containers and Akao teaches a hemisphere is formed at the gate location (col. 3, lines 59-62) during injection molding (col. 3, line 55, Fig. 1) as shown above for claim 1.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Quinesser by manufacturing the container by injection molding (Akao, col. 3, lines 55-56) wherein the resulting structure includes a hemispherical apex provided centrally on the curved portion, the hemispherical apex extending beyond the curved portion and opening in a same direction as the curved portion (Brunner, Fig. 10, presumably Brunner’s apex is also due to the injection gate of a molding process).
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to utilize injection molding, resulting in a hemispherical apex, in order to facilitate mass production of the container.
Regarding claim 16, Quinesser does not disclose an annular rib.
However, Lin et al. who is relied upon to teach an annular rib further teaches wherein at least one sidewall has a first circumference and the annular rib has a second circumference, wherein the first circumference is larger than the second circumference (Fig. 3) as reflected by the diameters (marked by arrows) indicated below:
PNG
media_image15.png
848
819
media_image15.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Quinesser wherein the at least one sidewall has a first circumference and the annular rib has a second circumference, wherein the first circumference is larger than the second circumference
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to select known shapes of blending containers, such as where an annular shoulder is present and forms a larger circumference than the circumference of the opening where the rib is located, to produce the predictable result of facilitating handling of the container and pouring therefrom. See In re Dailey, supra.
Regarding claim 17, the combined teachings of the above-cited references for claim 16 disclose wherein the annular shoulder tapers inwardly from the first circumference to the second circumference (Lin et al., Fig. 6) as shown below:
PNG
media_image16.png
338
675
media_image16.png
Greyscale
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Quinesser (previously attached translation of DE 202018105454) in view of Lin et al. (US 20170224168), Astegno (US 6193181), Akao (US 4639386) and Brunner (US 20170340170) as applied to claim 14 above and in further view of Hoare et al. (US 20180236421).
Regarding claim 15, Quinesser does not disclose the at least one sidewall includes three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, or ten sidewalls.
However, Hoare et al. discloses a blending container having more than 4 sidewalls (Fig. 1, such as eight, Fig. 4) as shown below:
PNG
media_image17.png
584
343
media_image17.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image18.png
539
371
media_image18.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Lin et al. wherein the at least one sidewall includes three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, or ten sidewalls.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use multiple sidewalls such as to facilitate handling (gripping) of the container.
Claims 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Quinesser (previously attached translation of DE 202018105454) in view of Lin et al. (US 20170224168), Astegno (US 6193181), Akao (US 4639386) and Brunner (US 20170340170) as applied to claim 14 above and in further view of Dygert et al. (US 20210229853).
Regarding claim 18, the combined teachings of the above-cited references for claim 14 do not disclose that the annular shoulder further comprises a curved portion and a tapered portion.
However, Dygert et al. discloses a container wherein the annular shoulder further comprising a curved portion and a tapered portion, wherein the curved portion connects the at least one sidewall to the tapered portion and the tapered portion connects the curved portion to the annular rib (Fig. 2) as shown below:
PNG
media_image19.png
676
806
media_image19.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Quinesser wherein the annular shoulder further comprises a curved portion and a tapered portion, wherein the curved portion connects the at least one sidewall to the tapered portion and the tapered portion connects the curved portion to the annular rib.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to select known shapes of containers to produce the predictable result of facilitating handling of the container and pouring therefrom. See In re Dailey, supra.
Regarding claim 20, it is deemed that the combined teachings of the above cited references for claim 18 reasonably disclose a length of the tapered portion of the annular shoulder and the curved portion of the annular shoulder together is from 10-20 mm (Lin et al., using the L3 dimension of 5-20 mm as an approximate scale, Fig. 10, para. [0038]).
Assuming, arguendo, that the length is not disclosed, the examiner has found that the specification contains no disclosure of any unexpected results arising therefrom, and that as such the parameters are arbitrary and therefore obvious. Such unsupported limitations cannot be a basis for patentability, because where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen parameters or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen parameters/variables are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990) and MPEP 2144.05(III) and MPEP 2144.05(III).
With respect to the limitation of the length of the tapered portion of the annular shoulder and the curved portion of the annular shoulder, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to have provided the apparatus of Quinesser with the dimensions recited in the instant claims, which are now considered at most an optimum choice, lacking any disclosed criticality.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Quinesser (previously attached translation of DE 202018105454) in view of Lin et al. (US 20170224168), Astegno (US 6193181) Akao (US 4639386), Brunner (US 20170340170) and Dygert et al. (US 20210229853) as applied to claim 18 above and in further view of Nakagawa et al. (US 20120024813).
Regarding claim 19, it is deemed that the combined teachings of the above-cited references for claim 18 reasonably disclose the angle between the tapered portion of the annular shoulder and at least one sidewall is from 110-130 degrees as measured from an axis defined by the at least one sidewall (Lin et al., Fig. 6) as shown below:
PNG
media_image20.png
254
411
media_image20.png
Greyscale
Assuming, arguendo, that the angle is not disclosed, the examiner has found that the specification contains no disclosure of any unexpected results arising therefrom, and that as such the parameters are arbitrary and therefore obvious. Such unsupported limitations cannot be a basis for patentability, because where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen parameters or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen parameters/variables are critical. See In re Woodruff, supra.
With respect to the limitation of the angle between the tapered portion of the annular shoulder and at least one sidewall, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to have provided the apparatus of Quinesser with the dimensions recited in the instant claims, which are now considered at most an optimum choice, lacking any disclosed criticality.
Further, Nakagawa et al. teaches a container having a taper angle of 130 degrees (angle alpha, Fig. 1, 40 degrees, para. [0031], is equal to 130 degrees (+90 degrees) as recited in the claim.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Quinesser wherein an angle between the tapered portion of the annular shoulder and at least one sidewall is from 110-130 degrees as measured from an axis defined by the at least one sidewall.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to select known shapes/angles of containers to produce the predictable result of facilitating handling of the container and pouring therefrom.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Rutigliano et al. (US 20050111296) discloses the use of pivoting motion of an immersion blender with curved containers (para. [0020]).
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 PATRICK M MCCARTY whose telephone number is (571)272-4398. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
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 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.
/P.M.M./Examiner, Art Unit 1774
/CLAIRE X WANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1774