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 .
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-5, 9-15 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Baek et al. (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2022/0322884).
Regarding claim 1, Baek et al. discloses a countertop appliance (title; figure 1), comprising:
interchangeable containers including a first container and a second container each having a base (figure 18, reference #10 and 10’), the first container including a first magnet coupled to the base of the first container at a first distance (figure 7, reference #104) and the second container including a second magnet coupled to the base of the second container at a second distance (figure 8, reference #104);
a housing (figure 1, reference #30) including a motor (figure 3, reference #51) and an attachment portion (figure 9, reference #325), wherein the interchangeable containers are selectively and operably coupled to the attachment portion of the housing (figures 3, 6, 18, 19);
an analog magnetic sensor disposed proximate the attachment portion of the housing, the analog magnetic sensor being configured to detect the first magnet at the first distance and the second magnet at the second distance (figures 9, 19-21, reference #39; [0100]; [0103]-[0104]; [0117]; [0119]; [0183]-[0184]); and
a controller communicatively coupled with the analog magnetic sensor, the controller being configured to identify one of the interchangeable containers based on the detected distance of one of the first magnet and the second magnet ([0198]; [0207]-[0208]).
Regarding claim 2, Baek et al. discloses wherein the analog magnetic sensor is configured to detect a polarity of each of the first magnet and the second magnet (reference #39; [0103] (sensor is a hall sensor that detects a magnet which has a polarity)). It is noted that the limitation is directed to an intended use of the magnetic sensor and a Hall sensor is capable to detect a polarity of a magnet.
Regarding claim 3, Baek et al. discloses wherein the controller is configured to identify one of the first container and the second container based on the detected polarity by the analog magnetic sensor (figures 20 and 21; [0198]; [0207]-[0208]). It is noted that the limitation is directed to an intended use of the controller, and the controller is capable to identify the first or second container based on the location and number of the detected polarized magnets.
Regarding claim 4, Baek et al. discloses wherein the controller is configured to prompt a container protocol for the identified interchangeable container ([0198]; [0208]).
Regarding claim 5, Baek et al. discloses wherein the controller is further configured to repeatedly detect the first and second magnets to determine whether the one of the interchangeable containers is stationary ([0198] and [0208] determines the container is mounted/stationary).
Regarding claim 9, Baek et al. discloses wherein each interchangeable container includes sidewalls extending from an upper portion of the base, the sidewalls of the first container extending from the upper portion by a first length and the sidewalls of the second container extending from the upper portion by a second length greater than the first length (figure 18, see length of walls of reference #10 versus 10’, not labeled).
Regarding claim 10, Baek et al. discloses wherein the first and second magnets are positioned on the upper portion (figures 7, 8 and 19, reference #104).
Regarding claim 11, Baek et al. discloses wherein the first and second magnets are configured to be positioned directly over the analog magnetic sensor (figures 20 and 21, reference #30 and opposing rectangle directly over reference #39, not labeled, but one of magnets 104).
Regarding claim 12, Baek et al. discloses wherein the analog magnetic sensor is a Hall effect sensor ([0103]).
Regarding claim 13, Baek et al. discloses wherein the Hall effect sensor is configured to detect a polarity of the first and second magnets, wherein the polarity includes one of a North polarity directed upward and a South polarity directed upward (reference #39; [0103] (sensor is a hall sensor that detects a magnet which has a polarity of north or south). It is noted that the limitation is directed to an intended use of the Hall effect sensor and a Hall sensor is capable to detect a polarity of a magnet which has a north or south polarity.
Regarding claim 14, Baek et al. discloses wherein the controller is configured to determine a verification check of an identity of the interchangeable containers based on the polarity (figures 20 and 21; [0198]; [0207]-[0208]). It is noted that the limitation is directed to an intended use of the controller, and the controller is capable to further identify the first or second container based on the location and number of the detected polarized magnets.
Regarding claim 15, Baek et al. discloses wherein the Hall effect sensor is configured to communicate positive and negative values to the controller based on the polarity of the first and second magnets (figures 20 and 21, reference #39; [0103] (sensor is a hall sensor that positively or negatively detects a magnet at a location opposite)), and wherein the controller is further configured to determine the identity of the interchangeable containers based further on the positive and negative values (figures 20 and 21; [0198]; [0207]-[0208]). It is noted that the limitation is directed to an intended use of the sensor and the controller, and the sensor and controller are capable to further identify the first or second container based on the positive or negative location and of the positively or negatively detected polarized magnets. There are no further structural limitations differentiating the recited hall effect sensor from any other typical hall effect sensor which is what is disclosed by Baek et al. and is known to perform as functionally recited.
Regarding claim 20, Baek et al. discloses a countertop appliance (title; figure 1), comprising:
interchangeable containers including a first container and a second container each having a base (figure 18, reference #10 and 10’), the first container includes a first magnet coupled to the base of the first container at a first distance (figure 7, reference #104) and the second container including a second magnet coupled to the base of the second container at a second distance (figure 8, reference #104);
a housing (figure 1, reference #30) including a motor (figure 3, reference #51) and an attachment portion (figure 9, reference #325), wherein the interchangeable containers are selectively and operably coupled to the attachment portion of the housing (figures 3, 6, 18, 19);
an analog magnetic sensor disposed proximate the attachment portion of the housing, the analog magnetic sensor being configured to detect a polarity of the first magnet at the first distance and a polarity of the second magnet at the second distance (figures 9, 19-21, reference #39; [0100]; [0103]-[0104]; [0117]; [0119]; [0183]-[0184]) (sensor is a hall sensor that detects a magnet which has a polarity at each located distance) (it is noted that the limitation is directed to an intended use of the magnetic sensor and a Hall sensor is capable to detect a polarity of a magnet); and
a controller communicatively coupled with the analog magnetic sensor configured to identify one of the interchangeable containers based on the detected polarity and the detected distance of one of the first magnet and the second magnet ([0198]; [0207]-[0208]) (It is noted that the limitation is directed to an intended use of the controller, and the controller is capable to identify the first or second container based on the location and number of the detected polarized magnets).
Claim(s) 1-5, 9-15 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Crozier et al. (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2021/0106167).
Regarding claim 1, Crozier et al. discloses a countertop appliance (title; figures 1 and 2, reference #1), comprising:
interchangeable containers including a first container and a second container (figures 1, two reference #7, with only one labeled; [0066] receptacle of large volume and receptacle of short volume) each having a base (figures 4, 10-12, reference #8), the first container including a first magnet coupled to the base of the first container at a first distance (figure 10, reference #13 “N”; [0067]; [0068] magnet at different position/distances) and the second container including a second magnet coupled to the base of the second container at a second distance (figure 10, reference #13 “S”; figures 11 and 12, reference #25; [0067]; [0068] magnet at different position/distances);
a housing (figure 1, where numeral 1 is pointing; figure 2, reference #3) including a motor (figure 2, reference #2) and an attachment portion (figure 1, reference #33), wherein the interchangeable containers are selectively and operably coupled to the attachment portion of the housing (figure 1, reference #7 and 33);
an analog magnetic sensor disposed proximate the attachment portion of the housing, the analog magnetic sensor being configured to detect the first magnet at the first distance and the second magnet at the second distance (figures 2 and 11, reference #24; [0023]; [0065]-[0068]); and
a controller communicatively coupled with the analog magnetic sensor, the controller being configured to identify one of the interchangeable containers based on the detected distance of one of the first magnet and the second magnet (figure 2, reference #19; [0065]; [0069]; [0072]-[0074]).
Regarding claim 2, Crozier et al. discloses wherein the analog magnetic sensor is configured to detect a polarity of each of the first magnet and the second magnet (reference #24; [0065]-[0067]).
Regarding claim 3, Crozier et al. discloses wherein the controller is configured to identify one of the first container and the second container based on the detected polarity by the analog magnetic sensor (figure 2, reference #19; [0065]; [0069]; [0072]-[0074]).
Regarding claim 4, Crozier et al. discloses wherein the controller is configured to prompt a container protocol for the identified interchangeable container ([0069]; [0074]).
Regarding claim 5, Crozier et al. discloses wherein the controller is further configured to repeatedly detect the first and second magnets to determine whether the one of the interchangeable containers is stationary (figure 13; [0072]-[0077]).
Regarding claim 9, Crozier et al. discloses wherein each interchangeable container includes sidewalls extending from an upper portion of the base, the sidewalls of the first container extending from the upper portion by a first length and the sidewalls of the second container extending from the upper portion by a second length greater than the first length ([0067] (short or long type of receptacle)).
Regarding claim 10, Crozier et al. discloses wherein the first and second magnets are positioned on the upper portion (figure 10, reference #13; figures 11 and 12, reference #25).
Regarding claim 11, Crozier et al. discloses wherein the first and second magnets are configured to be positioned directly over the analog magnetic sensor (figures 2, rectangle not labeled in reference #8 directly over reference #24; figure 11, reference #25 directly over reference #24).
Regarding claim 12, Crozier et al. discloses wherein the analog magnetic sensor is a Hall effect sensor ([0023]; [0065]; [0067]).
Regarding claim 13, Crozier et al. discloses wherein the Hall effect sensor is configured to detect a polarity of the first and second magnets, wherein the polarity includes one of a North polarity directed upward and a South polarity directed upward (figure 10, reference #13; [0065]-[0066]] (sensor is a hall sensor that detects a magnet which has a polarity of north or south). It is noted that the limitation is directed to an intended use of the Hall effect sensor and a Hall sensor is capable to detect a polarity of a magnet which has a north or south polarity.
Regarding claim 14, Crozier et al. discloses wherein the controller is configured to determine a verification check of an identity of the interchangeable containers based on the polarity (figures 13 and 15; [0071]-[0077]).
Regarding claim 15, Crozier et al. discloses wherein the Hall effect sensor is configured to communicate positive and negative values to the controller based on the polarity of the first and second magnets (reference #24; [0065-[0068]; [0072]] and wherein the controller is further configured to determine the identity of the interchangeable containers based further on the positive and negative values ([0065]; [0069]; [0072]). It is noted that the limitation is directed to an intended use of the sensor and the controller, and the sensor and controller are capable to further identify the first or second container based on the positive or negative location and of the positively or negatively detected polarized magnets. There are no further structural limitations differentiating the recited hall effect sensor from any other typical hall effect sensor which is what is disclosed by Baek et al. and is known to perform as functionally recited.
Regarding claim 20, Crozier et al. discloses a countertop appliance (title; figures 1 and 2, reference #1), comprising:
interchangeable containers including a first container and a second container (figures 1, two reference #7, with only one labeled; [0066] receptacle of large volume and receptacle of short volume) each having a base (figures 4, 10-12, reference #8), wherein the first container includes a first magnet coupled to the base of the first container at a first distance (figure 10, reference #13 “N”; [0067]; [0068] magnet at different position/distances) and the second container includes a second magnet coupled to the base of the second container at a second distance (figure 10, reference #13 “S”; figures 11 and 12, reference #25; [0067]; [0068] magnet at different position/distances);
a housing (figure 1, where numeral 1 is pointing; figure 2, reference #3) including a motor (figure 2, reference #2) and an attachment portion (figure 1, reference #33), wherein the interchangeable containers are selectively and operably coupled to the attachment portion of the housing (figure 1, reference #7 and 33);
an analog magnetic sensor disposed proximate the attachment portion of the housing, the analog magnetic sensor being configured to detect a polarity of the first magnet at the first distance and a polarity of the second magnet at the second distance (figures 2 and 11, reference #24; [0023]; [0065]-[0068]); and
a controller communicatively coupled with the analog magnetic sensor, the controller being configured to identify one of the interchangeable containers based on the detected polarity and the detected distance of one of the first magnet and the second magnet (figure 2, reference #19; [0065]; [0069]; [0072]-[0074]).
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.
Claim(s) 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baek et al. in view of Kovacic et al. (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2009/0084274).
Regarding claims 6-8, Baek et al. discloses all the limitations as set forth above. However, the reference does not explicitly disclose an activation rod.
Kovacic et al. teaches another kitchen appliance (title). The reference teaches wherein the first container (figure 2) includes a lid (figure 2, reference #6) and a body that defines a channel (figure 2, reference #8); an activation rod disposed within the channel (figure 2, reference #9) and includes a first magnet (figure 2, reference #14), the activation rod being translated via the lid (figures 2 and 3, reference #42; [0029]); wherein the controller is further configured to identify when the lid is in a closed position based on a change in position of the first magnet detected by the analog magnetic sensor (figure 1, reference #28; [0029]; [0032]); and wherein the controller is further configured to activate the motor in response to the lid being in the closed position (figure 1, reference #28; [0028]-[0029]; [0032]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the activation rod with first magnet wherein the controller is further configured to identify when the lid is in a closed position based on a change in position of the first magnet detected by the analog magnetic sensor; and wherein the controller is further configured to activate the motor in response to the lid being in the closed position of Kovacic et al. in the container of Baek et al. One of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect such a combination to be suitable given that both references teach kitchen appliances. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to provide an activation rod with first magnet and controller as configured to do the foregoing because it enhances the safety of the reliability of the appliance by ensuring the appliance is properly assembled (Kovacic et al. [0030]; [0032]).
Claim(s) 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crozier et al. in view of Kovacic et al.
Regarding claims 6-8, Crozier et al. discloses all the limitations as set forth above. However, the reference does not explicitly disclose an activation rod.
Kovacic et al. teaches another kitchen appliance (title). The reference teaches wherein the first container (figure 2) includes a lid (figure 2, reference #6) and a body that defines a channel (figure 2, reference #8); an activation rod disposed within the channel (figure 2, reference #9) and includes a first magnet (figure 2, reference #14), the activation rod being translated via the lid (figures 2 and 3, reference #42; [0029]); wherein the controller is further configured to identify when the lid is in a closed position based on a change in position of the first magnet detected by the analog magnetic sensor (figure 1, reference #28; [0029]; [0032]); and wherein the controller is further configured to activate the motor in response to the lid being in the closed position (figure 1, reference #28; [0028]-[0029]; [0032]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the activation rod with first magnet wherein the controller is further configured to identify when the lid is in a closed position based on a change in position of the first magnet detected by the analog magnetic sensor; and wherein the controller is further configured to activate the motor in response to the lid being in the closed position of Kovacic et al. in the container of Crozier et al. One of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect such a combination to be suitable given that both references teach kitchen appliances. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to provide an activation rod with first magnet and controller as configured to do the foregoing because it enhances the safety of the reliability of the appliance by ensuring the appliance is properly assembled (Kovacic et al. [0030]; [0032]).
Claim(s) 16-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kovacic et al.
Regarding claim 16, Kovacic et al. discloses a countertop appliance (abstract; figures 1-3), comprising:
interchangeable containers comprising a first container (figure 2) including a lid (figure 2, reference #6) and a body that defines a channel (figure 2, reference #8);
an activation rod disposed within the channel (figure 2, reference #9) and including a magnet (figure 2, reference #14), the activation rod being translated via the lid of the interchangeable containers (figures 2 and 3, reference #42; [0029]);
an analog magnetic sensor disposed proximate the magnet of the activation rod, the analog magnetic sensor being configured to detect a distance of the magnet relative to the analog magnetic sensor (figures 2 and 3, reference #22); and
a controller communicatively coupled with the analog magnetic sensor, the controller being configured to identify when the lid is in a closed position based on the distance of the magnet detected by the analog magnetic sensor (figure 1, reference #28; [0029]; [0032]).
While the reference only disclose a first container, the reference teaches that interchangeable tools, including receptacles, each with an identifying magnet may be used ([0018]; [0027]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide a second container with lid and body that defines a channel as one of the other additional interchangeable tools to match with the whisking, kneading, chopping tool, fruit press tools described by Kovacic et al. [0006] and to provide an additional container for different types and amounts of blending, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Regarding claim 17, Kovacic et al. discloses all the limitations as set forth above. The reference as modified further discloses wherein the analog magnetic sensor is configured to detect a polarity of each of the first magnet and the second magnet (reference #22; [0008]; [0029]; [0032] (sensor is a hall sensor that detects a magnet and its magnetic field which has a polarity)). It is noted that the limitation is directed to an intended use of the magnetic sensor and a Hall sensor is capable to detect a polarity of a magnet.
Regarding claim 18, Kovaci et al. discloses all the limitations as set forth above. The reference as modified further discloses wherein the controller is configured to identify one of the first container and the second container (additional tool as modified above to be a second container) based on the detected polarity by the analog magnetic sensor (figures 20 and 21; [0017-[0018]; [0022]; [0028]). It is noted that the limitation is directed to an intended use of the controller, and the controller is capable to identify the first or second container based on the detected polarized magnets.
Regarding claim 19, Kovaci et al. discloses all the limitations as set forth above. The reference as modified further discloses wherein the controller is configured to prompt a container protocol for the identified interchangeable container ([0017]-[0018]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIZABETH INSLER whose telephone number is (571)270-0492. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00am-5:00pm.
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.
/ELIZABETH INSLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1774