DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12 March 2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 8-13 and 15-24 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:
In claim 1, there is lack of antecedent basis for “the blending device”.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, independent claims 1, 23 and 24 recites the broad recitation “at least one blade”, and the claim also recites “wherein the at least one blade includes multiple blades” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claims are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claims 2, 4, 68-13 and 15-22 are indefinite due to depending from indefinite claim 1.
In claim 23, there is lack of antecedent basis for “the blending device”.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 8-13 and 15-22 are rejected on the basis that it contains an improper Markush grouping of alternatives. See In re Harnisch, 631 F.2d 716, 721-22 (CCPA 1980) and Ex parte Hozumi, 3 USPQ2d 1059, 1060 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1984). A Markush grouping is proper if the alternatives defined by the Markush group (i.e., alternatives from which a selection is to be made in the context of a combination or process, or alternative chemical compounds as a whole) share a “single structural similarity” and a common use. A Markush grouping meets these requirements in two situations. First, a Markush grouping is proper if the alternatives are all members of the same recognized physical or chemical class or the same art-recognized class, and are disclosed in the specification or known in the art to be functionally equivalent and have a common use. Second, where a Markush grouping describes alternative chemical compounds, whether by words or chemical formulas, and the alternatives do not belong to a recognized class as set forth above, the members of the Markush grouping may be considered to share a “single structural similarity” and common use where the alternatives share both a substantial structural feature and a common use that flows from the substantial structural feature. See MPEP § 2117.
The Markush grouping of a rear facing fin together with an inner lumen is improper because the alternatives defined by the Markush grouping do not share both a single structural similarity and a common use for the following reasons: a rear facing fin is unrelated to an inner lumen.
To overcome this rejection, Applicant may set forth each alternative (or grouping of patentably indistinct alternatives) within an improper Markush grouping in a series of independent or dependent claims and/or present convincing arguments that the group members recited in the alternative within a single claim in fact share a single structural similarity as well as a common use.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 23 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Inoue (US 6,682,213):
Regarding claim 23, Inoue discloses Inoue discloses a blender having proximal, distal and intermediate sections (sections of "3"; see Figs. 1, 5 and 6; col. 6, lines 7-9) each section having and upper and lower housing (upper and lower portions of 3; see Figs. 1, 5 and 6); a shaft (see Figs. 1, 2, 5 and 6) extending through the proximal section, the distal section and the at least one intermediate section; and at least one blade (21, 22F, 22N, 22B, 23) disposed on the shaft, wherein the at least one blade includes multiple blades (see Figs. 1, 5 and 6), wherein the blender comprises at least one blade (22N) comprising a radial-facing fin configured to drive a powder radially outward, wherein the blending device comprises a rear-facing fin (22B) configured to move the powder backward from the distal end of the blender back toward the proximal end of the blender.
Regarding claim 24, Inoue discloses Inoue discloses a blender having proximal, distal and intermediate sections (sections of "3"; see Figs. 1, 5 and 6; col. 6, lines 7-9) each section having and upper and lower housing (upper and lower portions of 3; see Figs. 1, 5 and 6); a shaft (see Figs. 1, 2, 5 and 6) extending through the proximal section, the distal section and the at least one intermediate section; and at least one blade (21, 22F, 22N, 22B, 23) disposed on the shaft, wherein the at least one blade includes multiple blades (see Figs. 1, 5 and 6), wherein the blender comprises at least one blade (22N) comprising a radial-facing fin configured to drive a powder radially outward, wherein each of the at least one blade includes an inner lumen, the inner lumen being configured and sized to slide over the shaft to removably couple the at least one blade to the shaft (see Figs. 2, 3A and 4A).
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ueda et al. (US 7,637,650). Ueda discloses a blender having proximal, distal and intermediate sections (sections of "2"; see Fig. 1) each section having and upper and lower housing (upper and lower portions of 2; see Fig. 1); a shaft (4) extending through the proximal section, the distal section and the at least one intermediate section; and at least one blade (those of 18, 19, 20) disposed on the shaft, wherein the at least one blade includes multiple blades (those of 18, 19, 20), wherein the blender comprises at least one blade (a portion of 20 proximate 14) comprising a radial-facing fin configured to drive a powder radially outward, wherein the blending device comprises a rear-facing fin (a portion of 19) configured to move the powder backward from the distal end of the blender back toward the proximal end of the blender.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 9-13, 15-18 and 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inoue (US 6,682,213) in view of Hanada (US 2011/0128814):
Regarding claim 1, Inoue discloses Inoue discloses Inoue discloses a blender having proximal, distal and intermediate sections (sections of "3"; see Figs. 1, 5 and 6; col. 6, lines 7-9) each section having and upper and lower housing (upper and lower portions of 3; see Figs. 1, 5 and 6); a shaft (see Figs. 1, 2, 5 and 6) extending through the proximal section, the distal section and the at least one intermediate section; and at least one blade (21, 22F, 22N, 22B, 23) disposed on the shaft, wherein the at least one blade includes multiple blades (see Figs. 1, 5 and 6), wherein the blender comprises at least one blade (22N) comprising a radial-facing fin configured to drive a powder radially outward, wherein the blending device comprises a rear-facing fin (22B) configured to move the powder backward from the distal end of the blender back toward the proximal end of the blender. Also, each of the at least one blade includes an inner lumen, the inner lumen being configured and sized to slide over the shaft to removably couple the at least one blade to the shaft (see Figs. 2, 3A and 4A). However, a blending device being made of a polymer is not disclosed. Hanada teaches making a blending device of polypropylene (see [0035]). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have made a blending device of polypropylene as taught by Hanada for lightweight, low cost, or transparency advantages.
Regarding claim 2, an inlet (5) is disposed in the proximal section in the proximal upper housing.
Regarding claim 4, multiple inlets (5,8) are disclosed.
Regarding claim 9, the at least one intermediate section includes multiple intermediate sections disposed between the proximal section and the distal section (see Fig. 1).
Regarding claims 10 and 11, as seen in Fig. 1 the intermediate section may be longer or short than the proximal section depending upon where one considers to be the intermediate section to begin and the proximal section end.
Regarding claim 12, the shaft includes multiple coupleable segments (21, 22F, 22N, 22B, 23) including a proximal segment coterminous with the proximal section, at least one intermediate segment coterminous with the at least one intermediate section, and a distal segment coterminous with the distal section (see Figs. 1, 2, 5 and 6).
Regarding claim 13, each of the at least one blade includes an inner lumen (see Figs. 2, 3A and 4A), the inner lumen being configured and sized to slide over the shaft to removably couple the at least one blade to the shaft.
Regarding claim 15, at least one of the multiple blades includes a proximal-facing fin (22F), and at least one of the multiple blades includes a distal- facing fin (22B).
Regarding claim 16, at least one of the multiple blades includes a radial fin (22N).
Regarding claim 17, at least one of the multiple blades includes a spacer (23) having no fins.
Regarding claim 18, the multiple blades include blades of different thicknesses (see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 20, at least one semi-circular baffle (27) or at least one axially-extending weir (27) is disclosed.
Regarding claim 21, at least one blade (22B) comprises a rear-facing fin configured to move the powder backward from the distal end of the blender back toward the proximal end of the blender.
Regarding claim 22, Hanada teaches making a blending device of polypropylene (see [0035]). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have made a blending device of polypropylene as taught by Hanada for lightweight, low cost, or transparency advantages.
Claims 1, 2, 6, 8-11, 15-17 and 19-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ueda et al. (US 7,637,650) in view of Hanada (US 2011/0128814):
Regarding claim 1, Ueda discloses a blender having proximal, distal and intermediate sections (sections of "2"; see Fig. 1) each section having and upper and lower housing (upper and lower portions of 2; see Fig. 1); a shaft (4) extending through the proximal section, the distal section and the at least one intermediate section; and at least one blade (those of 18, 19, 20) disposed on the shaft, wherein the at least one blade includes multiple blades (those of 18, 19, 20), wherein the blender comprises at least one blade (a portion of 20 proximate 14) comprising a radial-facing fin configured to drive a powder radially outward, , wherein the blending device comprises a rear-facing fin (a portion of 19) configured to move the powder backward from the distal end of the blender back toward the proximal end of the blender. ). However, a blending device being made of a polymer is not disclosed. Hanada teaches making a blending device of polypropylene (see [0035]). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have made a blending device of polypropylene as taught by Hanada for lightweight, low cost, or transparency advantages.
Regarding claim 2, an inlet (12) is disposed in the proximal upper housing.
Regarding claim 6, multiple outlets (14, 15, 21) are disclosed.
Regarding claim 8, at least one of the multiple outlets includes a closeable valve (22) that can be placed in an open position or a closed position.
Regarding claims 9-11, as the claims do not require the sections to be separate parts it is arbitrary how many intermediate sections there are and whether a small or larger portion is designated "intermediate".
Regarding claim 15, at least one of the multiple blades includes a proximal-facing fin (a portion of 19), and at least one of the multiple blades includes a distal-facing fin (another portion of 19).
Regarding claim 16, at least one of the multiple blades includes a radial fin (a portion of 20 proximate 14).
Regarding claim 17, at least one of the multiple blades includes a spacer having no fins (see the region of the shaft corresponding to "17").
Regarding claim 19, the at least one blade is unitarily formed with the shaft (see Figs. 1-5).
Regarding claim 20, at least one axially-extending weir (the ridge partially dividing the two chambers "3") is disclosed.
Regarding claim 21, at least one blade (a portion of 19) comprises a rear-facing fin configured to move the powder backward from the distal end of the blender back toward the proximal end of the blender.
Regarding claim 22, Hanada teaches making a blending device of polypropylene (see [0035]). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have made a blending device of polypropylene as taught by Hanada for lightweight, low cost, or transparency advantages.
Response to Arguments
Contrary to applicant’s remarks, Inoue discloses that 22n has radial fin as seen if Figs. 1, 4A, 4B, 5 and 6.
Element 23 of Inoue is a disc rather than having any fins.
Figs. 2, 3A and 4A of Inoue disclose lumen.
Applicant is correct that “22B” is not the correct reference character in Ueda for the rear facing fin, it is actually a part of “19”.
Applicant amended claim 1 to recite that “the blending device” (which is not a positively recited element of the claimed structure) is plastic, but it is well known to make blender parts of plastic for lightweight and cost advantages.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID L SORKIN whose telephone number is (571)272-1148. The examiner can normally be reached 7am-3:30pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Claire X Wang can be reached at (571) 270-1051. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
DAVID L. SORKIN
Examiner
Art Unit 1774
/DAVID L SORKIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1774