DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after 16 March 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . 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 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.
Response to Remarks
The remarks filed 6 February 2026 have been fully considered.
In the paragraph bridging pg. 4-5 of the applicant’s response it is argued, in regard to the limitation of claim 5 of “the exterior opening being larger than the interior opening so that the body of the spout narrows in a direction towards an interior of the container” that:
Applicant respectfully notes the application explains advantages of the exterior and interior openings. For example, ‘the dimension of the exterior opening 502 [is] limited due to optimizing the flow rate into the smaller opening 504,’ and ‘[o]ne of the benefits of having a larger exterior opening 502 is that it allows for easier pouring by a user and reduces spillage, while the smaller interior opening 504 prevents a user's fingers from protruding through.’ (Published application, [0024]-[0025] (emphasis added).) In contrast, the opening dimensions and the results are not contemplated by the cited references, suggesting the claimed interior and exterior openings are not merely a design choice obvious to a skilled artisan. Thus, Applicant respectfully submits ‘the exterior opening being larger than the interior opening so that the body of the spout narrows in a direction towards an interior of the container’ is not ‘merely a matter of choice which the ordinary artisan would have found obvious.’ (Office Action, 5.)”
This argument is found to be persuasive. Accordingly, the prior art rejection of claim 5 has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, it has been determined that claim 5 is unpatentable over Ryan (US 2015/0164279 A1), in view of Corkin et al. (US 2014/0190359 A1), Wang et al. (EP 3 135 159 A1), and Quinesser (US 2021/0267417 A1).
For completeness, the applicant also argued that:
“… a person of ordinary skill in the art would not modify the cited references’ openings to meet these claim limitations. As explained, the openings of the cited references’ preferred embodiments protrude from their respective lid surfaces. (Id.) Modifying these preferred embodiments to have an ‘external opening [] on a surface of the lid’ and an ‘interior opening [] in the interior of the container when the lid is secured to the top of the container’ would require increasing container volume to remove the protrusion and accommodate the openings in the container interior. Such modifications would increase device size, which would not be desirable, and deviate from the device designs taught by the respective references.”
The argument is not persuasive. Preferred embodiments are not required embodiments, and a desirable device size is subjective. Thus, to say that increasing device size would not be desirable is merely speculation. There is nothing in the text of the cited references that discourages an ordinary artisan from making the modifications the examiner is proposing. And increasing container volume would not be required since it is possible to decrease the dimensions of the spout instead. Further, the Ryan reference does not say the figures are “to scale”, thus it is entirely possible that the spout is, in reality, substantially smaller in diameter and that the container and lid are substantially larger in diameter, thus resulting in plenty of space for the modification; or it could be that the angle of the spout of modified Ryan is already sufficient to allow the claimed alignment. Further, it could be a “reduction of feeding tube opening area” (since nothing in Ryan says it cannot be reduced) or an increase in diameter of the container, or a combination of both that allows the claimed alignment. The ordinary artisan, being one of ordinary creativity, would readily envisage a desired manner of accomplishing the claimed alignment in view of the prior art. Additionally, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). And it also may be worth pointing out that it has been held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. MPEP § 2144.04, subsection IV.A.
Please see the current rejections below.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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.
Claims 5-6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Ryan (US 2015/0164279 A1), in view of Corkin et al. (US 2014/0190359 A1), Wang et al. (EP 3 135 159 A1), and Quinesser (US 2021/0267417 A1).
In re claims 5 and 6: Ryan discloses a powered food processing system, comprising:
a powerhead (14, fig. 4-7) having a motor (¶ 44);
a food processor having a container (18) for holding food, the container having a central axis (a longitudinal centerline of the container), a blade assembly (28, fig. 2-3) within the container for cutting the food (¶ 41), and a lid (20) removably secured to a top of the container via a first side of the lid (see fig. 6-7 and ¶ 46);
wherein the lid (20) includes a spout (21) for introducing food into the container (¶ 40), the spout having a body and portions of the body protrude into the container (fig. 7, 21-22), and the body has a central axis (a longitudinal centerline of the spout), wherein:
the spout (21) has an exterior opening and an interior opening (see fig. 6-7), and
the interior opening is in the interior of the container (18) when the lid (20) is secured to the top of the container (18) (this can be deduced from fig. 7);
wherein the lid (20) includes a neck portion (23a, 24) that can be detachably coupled to the powerhead via a second side (20a) of the lid (see fig. 6-7 and ¶ 40); and
wherein when the lid (20) is attached to the powerhead (15), the motor drives the blade assembly (28) in a spinning motion (see fig. 6-7).
Ryan does not disclose the central axis of the spout is angled so that it intersects the central axis of the container within boundaries of the container, wherein: the exterior opening is larger than the interior opening so that the body of the spout narrows in a direction towards an interior of the container, and the external opening is on a surface of the lid; and, from claim 6, wherein an angle between the central axis of the spout and the central axis of the container is between 20-35 degrees.
However, Corkin teaches a food processor (fig. 3) comprising a lid (50) having a spout (formed by the exterior surface of the lid, and shelf 52) that is angled relative to a vertical axis of the container (fig. 1, 3) such that a body of the spout protrudes into the container and has a central axis that is angled so that it intersects the central axis of the container within boundaries of the container, wherein the exterior opening is larger than the interior opening so that the body of the spout narrows in a direction towards an interior of the container, and the external opening is on a surface of the lid (see annotated fig. 3 of Corkin below; because the exterior surface of the lid delimits the exterior opening of the spout, the exterior opening of Corkin can be interpreted as being on, and in, an exterior surface of the lid). And Wang teaches multiple embodiments of a food processor (juicer) wherein a spout is provided at different angles ‘a’ between 30° and 60° (§§ [0009], [0010]; and fig. 1, 5, 7, 11-12, 15-16). Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinary artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ryan such that the central axis of the spout is angled between 30° and 35° relative to the central axis of the container, as taught by Corkin and Wang, since it has been held that applying known techniques to yield predictable results requires only routine skill in the art (KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1742, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)). The proposed modification results in modified Ryan being configured such that the angle causes the central axis of the spout to intersect the central axis of the container within boundaries of the container.
PNG
media_image1.png
234
462
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Modified Ryan is silent regarding the central axis of the powerhead aligning with the central axis of the container. However, note that the applicant admits that “because more components are used to drive the rotating blades 28 [of Ryan], a POSITA would have understood that Ryan’s food processing device suffers more mechanical loss, compared to the claimed food processing system.” (See ¶ 2 on pg. 6 of the applicant’s response filed 15 August 2025.)
Quinesser teaches a food processor comprising a powerhead (102) having a motor and a central axis that aligns with a central axis of a container (108) (fig. 1, 7 and abstract). Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinary artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Ryan such that the central axes of the motorhead and container align, as taught by Quinesser, thereby reducing the “mechanical loss” that “Ryan’s food processing device suffers”.
In re claim 8, which depends on claim 5: modified Ryan is silent regarding the blade assembly including at least two blades, each at different heights.
However, Quinesser teaches a blade assembly (chopper tool 140) including two blades (141) at different heights (fig. 7). Therefore, it would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide modified Ryan with a blade assembly having two blades at different heights for chopping/blending a foodstuff, as taught by Quinesser (¶ 81). Such a provision allows for the food processor of modified Ryan to be multifunctional.
Pertinent Prior Art
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure:
Sokratis (EP 3 563 736 A1) teaches at least various features of at least independent claim 5.
Conclusion
Applicant’s amendment necessitated any 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jared O. Brown whose telephone number is 303-297-4445. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday: 8:00 - 5:00 (Mountain Time).
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 complete and submit the Automated Interview Request (AIR) form located at the following website: http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Christopher (“Chris”) L. Templeton can be reached at 571-270-1477. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. For more information about Patent Center, visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center; and for information about filing in DOCX format, visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx. 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 THE USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JARED O BROWN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3725