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 Amendment
No claim amendments have been made. Thus, claims 1, 2, 4-6, 9-13, and 15-24 remain pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 2, 4-6, 9-13, and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pryor, Jr. et al. (US PGPub 2016/0317988, hereinafter Pryor) in view of Farrell et al. (US PGPub 2010/0108696, hereinafter Farrell).
Regarding claim 1, Pryor discloses a micro puree machine (figure 16) including a bowl assembly, the bowl assembly comprising:
a beaker (figure 16, cup 104) configured to receive ingredients therein, the beaker comprising a bottom surface (see figure 3);
a beaker coupling (cup-receiving holder 140) configured to receive the beaker therein, the beaker coupling comprising an upper surface (see figure 16); and
a bowl (well 130) configured to receive the beaker coupling and the beaker therein;
wherein the beaker coupling is operatively coupled to a drive motor (motor 190) for rotation about an axis relative to the bowl (paragraph 0025, “a first motor operatively connected to the cup-holder to rotate the cup-holder”); and
Pryor is silent to alignment structures as recited. Farrell teaches a micro puree machine having a bowl assembly (paragraph 0002) including a beaker (figure 2, container 10) that includes at least one first alignment structure (pattern 18) and a beaker coupling (figure 6, cup holder 40) that includes at least one second alignment structure (members 48) wherein the at least one first alignment structure is complementary to the at least one second alignment structure (see figures 9 and 10) such that, when the beaker is positioned within the beaker coupling, the at least one first alignment structure and the at least one second alignment structure prevent rotation of the beaker relative to the beaker coupling (paragraph 0020, “Container 10 is provided with an anti-rotation mechanism designed to engage the container within a cup holder associated with the boring/blending device so as to prevent rotation of the cup during processing”). To one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to have provided the apparatus of Pryor with the alignment structures of Farrell for the purpose of preventing rotation of the cup. It is noted that Pryor discloses clamping of the cup to keep it secured (paragraph 0103), but the substitution of such a feature for another known securing feature (such as that of Farrell) would have provided only the predictable result of securing the cup against rotation, and is thus considered to be obvious. The obviousness of substituting one securing feature for another applies to all the rejections below.
Regarding claim 2, Pryor discloses the bowl (figure 16, well 130) comprises a bottom surface that includes at least one coupling member configured to receive and attach to a portion of the platform of the micro puree machine (see figure 16).
Regarding claim 4, Pryor is silent to alignment structures as recited. Farrell is relied upon, as above, to teach alignment structures, and further to teach the at least one second alignment structure extends upward into a beaker volume defined by the beaker (see figures 9 and 10). To one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to have provided the apparatus of Pryor with the alignment structures of Farrell for the purpose of preventing rotation of the cup.
Regarding claim 5, Pryor is silent to alignment structures as recited. Farrell is relied upon, as above, to teach alignment structures, and further to teach the at least one second alignment structure is positioned closer to an outer circumference of the beaker coupling than to a central axis of the beaker coupling (see figures 7 and 9). Any portion of the alignment structures seen in figure 7 could be considered the broadly-recited second alignment structure, and thus the claim is met by any portion that is closer to the outer circumference than to the central axis. To one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to have provided the apparatus of Pryor with the alignment structures of Farrell for the purpose of preventing rotation of the cup.
Regarding claim 6, Pryor is silent to alignment structures as recited. Farrell is relied upon, as above, to teach alignment structures, and further to teach the at least one first alignment structure creates a void on the exterior bottom surface of the beaker (see figures 3A and 3B). To one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to have provided the apparatus of Pryor with the alignment structures of Farrell for the purpose of preventing rotation of the cup.
Regarding claim 9, Pryor is silent to alignment structures as recited. Farrell is relied upon, as above, to teach alignment structures, and further to teach at least three first alignment structures (figure 3A shows three structures, figure 3B shows 5). To one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to have provided the apparatus of Pryor with the alignment structures of Farrell for the purpose of preventing rotation of the cup.
Regarding claim 10, Pryor is silent to alignment structures as recited. Farrell is relied upon as above, to teach second alignment structures. Although Farrell teaches two alignment structures on the cup holder (see figure 7), the presence of additional alignment structures on the cup (three in figure 3A, five in figure 3B) would clearly indicate that more alignment structures could be present on the cup holder, including the claimed at least three second alignment structures. Further, it has been held that the mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. See In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). In this case, providing additional alignment structures on the beaker coupling would provide only the expected result of having additional points of contact to secure the beaker.
Regarding claim 11, Pryor discloses the beaker coupling (figure 16, holder 140) is attached to a drive motor coupling (paragraph 0101, “the motor 190 may be rotatably coupled with the holder 140 via…a rotating gear system”) of the drive motor (motor 190).
Regarding claim 12, Pryor discloses a method of operating a micro puree machine comprising:
positioning a beaker (figure 16, cup 104) within a beaker coupling (holder 140) of the micro puree machine, the beaker configured to receive ingredients therein, the beaker comprising a bottom surface (see figure 16),
the beaker coupling comprising an upper surface (see figure 16), the beaker coupling located within a bowl (well 130); an
attaching the bowl to a platform of the micro puree machine (see figure 16);
wherein the beaker coupling is operatively coupled to a drive motor for rotation about an axis relative to the bowl (paragraph 0025, “a first motor operatively connected to the cup-holder to rotate the cup-holder”).
Pryor is silent to alignment structures as recited. Farrell teaches a micro puree machine having a bowl assembly (paragraph 0002) including a beaker (figure 2, container 10) that includes at least one first alignment structure (pattern 18) and a beaker coupling (figure 6, cup holder 40) that includes at least one second alignment structure (members 48) wherein the at least one first alignment structure is complementary to the at least one second alignment structure (see figures 9 and 10) such that, when the beaker is positioned within the beaker coupling, the at least one first alignment structure and the at least one second alignment structure prevent rotation of the beaker relative to the beaker coupling (paragraph 0020, “Container 10 is provided with an anti-rotation mechanism designed to engage the container within a cup holder associated with the boring/blending device so as to prevent rotation of the cup during processing”). To one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to have provided the apparatus of Pryor with the alignment structures of Farrell for the purpose of preventing rotation of the cup. It is noted that Pryor discloses clamping of the cup to keep it secured (paragraph 0103), but the substitution of such a feature for another known securing feature (such as that of Farrell) would have provided only the predictable result of securing the cup against rotation, and is thus considered to be obvious.
Regarding claim 13, Pryor discloses the bowl (figure 16, well 130) comprises a bottom surface that includes at least one coupling member configured to receive and attach to a portion of the platform of the micro puree machine (see figure 16).
Regarding claim 15, Pryor is silent to alignment structures as recited. Farrell is relied upon, as above, to teach alignment structures, and further to teach the at least one second alignment structure extends upward into a beaker volume defined by the beaker (see figures 9 and 10). To one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to have provided the apparatus of Pryor with the alignment structures of Farrell for the purpose of preventing rotation of the cup.
Regarding claim 16, Pryor is silent to alignment structures as recited. Farrell is relied upon, as above, to teach alignment structures, and further to teach the at least one second alignment structure is positioned closer to an outer circumference of the beaker coupling than to a central axis of the beaker coupling (see figures 7 and 9). Any portion of the alignment structures seen in figure 7 could be considered the broadly-recited second alignment structure, and thus the claim is met by any portion that is closer to the outer circumference than to the central axis. To one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to have provided the apparatus of Pryor with the alignment structures of Farrell for the purpose of preventing rotation of the cup.
Regarding claim 17, Pryor is silent to alignment structures as recited. Farrell is relied upon, as above, to teach alignment structures, and further to teach the at least one first alignment structure creates a void on the exterior bottom surface of the beaker (see figures 3A and 3B). To one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to have provided the apparatus of Pryor with the alignment structures of Farrell for the purpose of preventing rotation of the cup.
Regarding claim 18, Pryor is silent to alignment structures as recited. Farrell is relied upon, as above, to teach alignment structures, and further to teach at least three first alignment structures (figure 3A shows three structures, figure 3B shows 5). To one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to have provided the apparatus of Pryor with the alignment structures of Farrell for the purpose of preventing rotation of the cup.
Regarding claim 19, Pryor is silent to alignment structures as recited. Farrell is relied upon as above, to teach second alignment structures. Although Farrell teaches two alignment structures on the cup holder (see figure 7), the presence of additional alignment structures on the cup (three in figure 3A, five in figure 3B) would clearly indicate that more alignment structures could be present on the cup holder, including the claimed at least three second alignment structures. Further, it has been held that the mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. See In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). In this case, providing additional alignment structures on the beaker coupling would provide only the expected result of having additional points of contact to secure the beaker.
Regarding claim 20, Pryor discloses the beaker coupling (figure 16, holder 140) is attached to a drive motor coupling (paragraph 0101, “the motor 190 may be rotatably coupled with the holder 140 via…a rotating gear system”) of the drive motor (motor 190).
Claims 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pryor, Jr. et al. (US PGPub 2016/0317988, hereinafter Pryor).
Regarding claim 21, Pryor discloses a device for processing ingredients in a beaker (figure 16, cup 104) removably couplable to the device, the device comprising:
a blade assembly (mixing blade 120);
a driven shaft (shaft 122) configured to removably attach to the blade assembly (shaft 122 would be fully capable of removably attaching to a blade assembly; it is noted that figure 16 shows the shaft and blades to be separate pieces); and
a first drive unit configured to translate the driven shaft (paragraph 0010, “a stepper motor to move a carriage up and down on the frame”; see carriage 117 in figure 16) and the blade assembly along an axis while the beaker is rotated about the axis (paragraph 0025, “a first motor operatively connected to the cup-holder to rotate the cup-holder”).
Although it is noted that Pryor teaches a tilted arrangement for the cup in figure 16, Pryor also teaches an arrangement in which the cup is arranged to have the same central axis as the shaft (see figure 3). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have positioned the shaft and cup with the same central axis because both arrangements are known in the art and would provide only the predictable result of allowing for stirring of ingredients within the cup. It is further noted that the cup of Pryor would rotate around both axis A and B in figure 16, meeting the claim.
Regarding claim 22, Pryor discloses the axis being a vertical axis (see alignment of shaft 22 and cup holder 40 in figure 3).
Regarding claim 23, Pryor discloses a beaker coupling (figure 3, cup holder 40) configured to receive the beaker (cup 4) therein, the beaker coupling operatively coupled to a second drive unit for rotating the beaker and the beaker coupling about the axis (paragraph 0025, “a first motor operatively connected to the cup-holder to rotate the cup-holder”).
Regarding claim 24, Pryor discloses the beaker and the beaker coupling are configured to prevent rotation of the beaker relative to the beaker coupling (paragraph 0103, “clamping a cup”; paragraph 0025, “a cup-holder to secure a tapered cup selectively placed therein”). The cited passages state that the cup is clamped and secured by the cup holder, indicating that these structures are configured to prevent movement of the cup, including rotation as recited.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/27/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that Farrell does not disclose complementary shapes as recited in claim 1 (remarks, pages 2 and 3). The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As can clearly be seen in figure 6 of Farrell, the curves present on members 48 are complementary to the curves on the elements present on the base of the vessel seen in figure 3A. The claim is sufficiently broad as to not require every piece of the shapes to be perfectly complementary to each other, and thus this argument is not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that Pryor does not teach a removably attached mixing blade (remarks, pages 3-4). The Examiner respectfully disagrees. It is well-settled that drawings are useful for all that they show or would reasonably suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art, and that it does not matter that the feature shown is unintended or unexplained in the specification. See MPEP 2125. In this case, figure 16 of Pryor clearly shows a shaft and blade assembly that are not a unitary piece, and thus would be capable of being removed from one another by some means. Further, it has been held that making structures separable would be well within the ability of one having ordinary skill in the art if there was a reason to do so. See In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961). In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it desirable to remove the blade assembly for maintenance or replacement without needing to replace the entire shaft, indicating that such a modification would be obvious. Finally, it is noted that the claim requires that the shaft be configured to (i.e. be capable of) removably attach to the blade. This is an extremely broad recitation that only places a functional requirement on the shaft itself, as any shaft would be fully capable of being removably attached to a blade, for example by using adhesive. Thus, this argument is not persuasive.
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 MARC C HOWELL whose telephone number is (571)272-9834. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-5.
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 on 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.
/MARC C HOWELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1774