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 .
Comment
The Office notices that the top-left corner of the first page of the submitted specification provides the names “Dane Turk and Alicia Long,” but sees only the name “Dane Turk” listed as an inventor as provide in the Application Data Sheet filed 19 September 2022. The Office also notices another application with Dane Turk listed as inventor (18/351,290), which also lists Alicia Long as inventor. The Office encourages Applicant to review the filing to ensure that the proper inventors are listed in the application.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1–19, in the reply filed on 17 September 2025 is acknowledged.
Claim 20 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 121 in figs. 1 and 3.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “162” has been used to designate both the fill lines (see fig. 3 and ¶ 26) and the leading serrated edge (see fig. 4 and ¶ 29).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it recites phrases which can be implied (“This present invention relates to”). A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
¶ 30 recites “filter or straining pour spout 500.” While the filter (more recently called the strainer in this section of the specification) is reference character 500, the pour spout seems to be reference character 526. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 12 and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 12 should be amended to recite “filter is positioned.”
In claim 14 on lines 13 (twice), 15, and 17, “having” should be changed to “has” for grammatical purposes.
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.
Claims 10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 10 recites “said single serving,” which lacks antecedent basis, but also needs context to make its place in the claims clear.
Claim 12 recites “said filter,” but this limitation lacks antecedent basis because it is introduced in dependent claim 11, but claim 12 depends from claim 10. For examination purposes, the claim will be understood to depend from claim 11.
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.
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 1–9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Atinaja (US Pub. 2021/0022557).
Claim 1: Atinaja discloses a nut blender (title, “Blender”) for making nut milk (¶ 51, “alternative milks”) comprising:
a mixer (100) including a cap (105), a blender body (110), a mixing blade configuration (500), and a heating element (415) for blending nuts; and
a plurality of mixer controls (835, see fig. 8).
Atinaja does not exactly disclose its plurality of mixer controls including a variety of preselectable settings for simultaneous blend duration and temperature setting; said plurality of mixer controls include at least three settings, wherein a first setting includes a first blend duration and a first heat setting, a second setting includes a second blend duration and a second heat setting, and a third setting includes a third blend duration and a third heat setting; and further wherein said second heat setting is greater than said first heat setting and said third heat setting is greater than said second heat setting.
Instead, Atinaja discloses preselectable settings with complex blend duration and temperature programs. See 825 in fig. 8, discussed in ¶ 52, and see figs. 14A–17B showing flowcharts of these preselectable settings.
However, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to appreciate that preselectable settings with simpler designs of a single blend duration and temperature setting could have their usefulness in preparing certain food or beverage items. Furthermore, given the range of temperatures adoptable within Atinaja (see fig. 11A showing part of a custom blend mode, with temperatures ranging from 100–212 °F), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have at least three settings, each with different temperatures (thereby making one higher than one other, and another one higher than the two others), so that they would be adaptable to different food or beverage processes. These designs fall within the general purview of recipe making.
Claim 2: Continuing from the discussion in claim 1 above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have said second blend duration be greater than said first blend duration and said third blend duration be greater than said second blend duration as, at least given the breath of time options taught by Atinaja (see 1095 in fig. 11B), one of ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated how longer durations (coupled with higher heat settings) could be predictably beneficial for processing certain food and/or beverage items. Again, this design falls within the general purview of recipe making.
Claim 3: With respect to the portions of Atinaja cited above, the reference does not disclose that the first heat setting is zero.
However, using the heat element in Atinaja is optional, especially as evidenced by its non-heated operational modes 815 (discussed in ¶ 51; an example program shown in figs. 19A and 19B).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the first heat setting be zero to allow for no heat treatment as appropriate for certain food and/or beverage processing.
Claim 4: Continuing from the discussion in claim 1 above, Atinaja teaches that a first blend duration could be less than or equal to 2 minutes (see 1095 in fig. 11B showing time ranges under at least 15 minutes.
Claim 5: Continuing from the discussion in claim 1 above, Atinaja teaches that the second heat setting could be less than or equal to 70 degrees C (see 1085 in fig. 11A, showing a range of 100–212 °F (equal to 38–100 °C).
Claim 6: Continuing from the discussion in claim 1 above, Atinaja teaches that a second blend duration could be is less than or equal to 6 minutes (see 1095 in fig. 11B showing time ranges under at least 15 minutes).
Claim 7: Continuing from the discussion in claim 1 above, Atinaja teaches that a third heat setting could be less than or equal to 120 degrees C (see 1085 in fig. 11A, showing a range of 100–212 °F (equal to 38–100 °C).
Claim 8: Continuing from the discussion in claim 1 above, Atinaja teaches that said third blend duration could be less than or equal to 20 minutes (see 1095 in fig. 11B showing time ranges under at least 15 minutes).
Claim 9: Continuing from the discussion in claim 1 above, Atinaja teaches that said third blend duration could be less than or equal to 15 minutes (see 1095 in fig. 11B showing time ranges under at least 15 minutes).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Atinaja as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Uchendu (US Pub. 2022/0225833).
Atinaja does not disclose that any single serving is from about 6 ounces to about 20 ounces (understood as referring to the capabilities of the apparatus).
However, Uchendu discloses a similar blender with a mixer (34) and a heating element (50), where its blender body is capable of processing a serving from 6 ounces to 20 ounces (¶ 47, “container 32 is a pitcher sized to hold approximately 72 fluid ounces”).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Atinaja with Uchendu, by providing that its blender body was capable of processing a serving from 6 to 20 ounces, as this is a known and suitable volume for a serving.
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Atinaja as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Reyes et al. (US Pub. 2007/0147171).
Claim 11: Atinaja does not disclose a removable internal filter for filtering nut pulp from the nut milk.
However, Reyes discloses a blender with a removable internal filter (82, 88; removable along with the lid 78) for filtering nut pulp from the nut milk (this filter would be capable of filtering nut pulp from nut milk).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement the filter of Reyes into the cap of Atinaja to conveniently provide a filter for a user (see ¶ 8 of Reyes).
Claim 12: Modified as per claim 11 above (see the § 112(b) rejection above), Reyes discloses that said filter is positioned between said cap and said blender body (evident from figs. 2 and 3; the filter is beneath a cap defined by 68 and 72).
Comment: Should Applicant find this explanation of the prior art unpersuasive, the Office may further cite to references such as Bruss et al. (US Pat. 5,653,881), Busbey (US Pat. 4,310,418), or Ek (US Pub. 2009/0026204)
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Atinaja in view of Reyes as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Wang et al. (CN 206080172 U).
Modified as per claim 11 above, Reyes discloses said filter including a mesh (¶ 25, “In another embodiment, screen or mesh may be used to cover holes 88 so as to further strain the contents of jar 62”).
Reyes does not disclose its mesh size being from about 50 microns to about 250 microns.
However, Wang discloses a soybean milk machine (to compare, Atinaja discloses making alternative milks, see ¶ 51), and teaches the use of a filter with a mesh size from about 50 microns to about 250 microns (“according to the relation table of the filter mesh quantity, and bean grain size can be found, this utility model basically without residue through 50 meshes filter screen filtering, dregs with average particle size of 300 microns or less, because small bean dregs amount in 80 meshes after filtering, and the average granularity is less than 178 microns, therefore, even if a little bean dregs through 80 meshes filter, for the consumer, it basically does not affect the taste”).
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select a mesh size for the mesh of Reyes as incorporated into Atinaja, between 50 and 250 microns, as taught by Wang, as known as effective for soybean milk.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14–19 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the objection set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 14, the claimed blade configuration is highly specific and does not appear to be obvious in light of the prior art.
Wulf et al. (US Pub. 2002/0176320) is highly relevant for disclosing a major blade and a minor blade, where the references teaches a possibility that the leading edge of one the major blades could be serrated (see ¶ 67). Wulf also teaches a top blade assembly with upturned tips, and a bottom blade assembly with downturned tips. However, while Wulf’s bottom blade assembly appears to be generally orthogonal to its major blade, its top blade assembly is not.
Orts et al. (WO 2023/002089 A1) discloses a blade configuration with major and minor blades, some serrated and some knife edges, as well as upturned and downturned tips. However, none of the blades have a generally orthogonal relationship (understood as clearly distinct from the 60° angles shown in Orts), and otherwise the reference has numerous differences from the claimed configuration.
Doyen et al. (EP 2522262 A1) is similar to Orts.
Kim et al. (US Pub. 2018/0140138) appears to disclose a blade configuration with one blade that has an upturned tip and a downturned tip (zoom in on fig. 3). Although Kim discloses an orthogonal relationship between its two blades, it is otherwise different from what is claimed.
It would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the separate features from these references together without the benefit of hindsight.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to John J. Norton whose telephone number is (571)272-5174. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM EST.
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, Edward F. Landrum can be reached at (571) 272-8648. 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.
/JOHN J NORTON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761