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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group 1 (Claims 16-29) in the reply filed on January 20, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the grounds that “all groups of claims are sufficiently related to each other that an undue burden would not be placed upon the examiner”. This is not found persuasive because, as set forth in the restriction action sent on December 17, 2025:
“Groups I and II lack unity of invention because even though the inventions of these groups require the technical feature of a food processing tool, this technical feature is not a special technical feature as it does not make a contribution over the prior art in view of Penaranda (US 6,186,656 B1) which teaches a “processing tool” (Abstract) for food.”
Furthermore, Burden is not a factor in Unity of Invention, see MPEP §1850. The Applicant’s arguments cite MPEP §803, which does not apply to restrictions under the Unity of Invention standard applied to applications filed under 35 U.S.C. 371.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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 18-24 and 26-27 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. Regarding these claims, the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. As a result, these limitations cannot further limit the claims. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 16, 24-25, 27 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Peñaranda (US 6,186,656 B1):
PNG
media_image1.png
818
694
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 16: Peñaranda teaches a food processing tool (See Figure 1 as annotated) having a housing (“bell shaped housing” Col 3 Lines 41-42 Figure 1 Element 3) defining a volume (See annotated figure 1 “Volume”) therein, the tool comprising: a drive-shaft (“shaft” Col 4 Line 23 Figure 1 Element 4) configured to drive a bladed tool (“cutter blade” Col 3 Line 45 Figure 1 Element 6) attached thereto about an axis of rotation (“shaft axis” Col 3 Line 43 Figure 1 Element 5); and an insert (“cover plate” Col 4 Line 23 Figure 1 Element 18) located and arranged in the housing so as to define a processing volume (See annotated figure 1) open to an outside of the housing through an opening (“open end” Col 4 Line 49) thereof; wherein the insert is integral with the housing (“cover plate…has its edge…welded to the inner surface of the bell-shaped housing” Col 2 Lines 50-52).
Regarding Claim 24: Peñaranda further teaches that the insert (“cover plate” Col 4 Line 23) is sealingly welded to the housing (“cover plate…has its edge…welded to the inner surface of the bell-shaped housing” Col 2 Lines 50-52) so as to seal against liquid ingress between the housing and the insert (“the seal is further intended to prevent cleansing water from penetrating into the housing of the tool” Col 1 Lines 23-25).
Regarding Claim 25: Peñaranda further teaches that less than 70% (Figure 1 fairly shows that the insert covers less than half of the internal surface area of the housing which is less than 70%) of an internal surface area of the housing (“bell shaped housing” Col 3 Lines 41-42 Figure 1 Element 3) is covered by the insert (“cover plate” Col 4 Line 23 Figure 1 Element 18).
Regarding Claim 27: Peñaranda further teaches that an exterior of the housing forms a maximum angle of 90 degrees or more to the axis of rotation (bell shaped housing shown in figure 1).
Regarding Claim 29: Peñaranda further teaches the tool of claim 16 contained within a food processing appliance (Figure 1 All Elements, col 1 lines 10-11)
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.
Claims 17 and 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peñaranda (US 6,186656 B1) in view of Decman (EP 3051991B1):
PNG
media_image2.png
836
812
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 17: Peñaranda teaches the limitations of Claim 16 on which Claim 17 depends.
Peñaranda does not teach that the insert comprises ribs
However, Decman does teach a tool to be used for “mixing, pureeing, chopping and/ or cutting a…food” a kitchen appliance comprising “ribs” ([0029] Figure 3 Element 7)
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention, to modify the invention of Peñaranda with the ribs of Decman in order to enable the content inside the processing volume to be “deflected downward… [and enable] the mixing of the material to be processed…faster and more efficiently” [0029].
Regarding Claim 19: Peñaranda as modified by Decman further teaches that the ribs (Decman “ribs” ([0029] Figure 3 Element 7) extend radially substantially at a right-angle to the axis of rotation (Peñaranda “shaft axis” Col 3 Line 43 Figure 1 Element 5) over the majority of their length (Shown in Decman Figure 3)
Regarding Claim 20: Peñaranda as modified by Decman further teaches that the ribs (Decman “ribs” ([0029] Figure 3 Element 7) each respectively comprise a forward slope (See Decman Figure 3 “Forward Slope”), and a reverse slope (See Decman Figure 3 “Reverse Slope”), wherein a minimum angle formed by the forward slope relative to a direction of rotation of the bladed tool is steeper than that of the reverse slope (Figure 3 further shows that the forward slope is steeper than the reverse slope)
Regarding Claim 21: Peñaranda as modified by Decman further teaches that the ribs (Decman “ribs” ([0029] Figure 3 Element 7) curve away from a direction of rotation of the bladed tool (the configuration of the ribs is “directed…radially outward from…axis of rotation” [0020]
Claims 22-23 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peñaranda (US 6,186656 B1) in view of Egger (US 2016/0015216 A1):
PNG
media_image3.png
472
530
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 22: Peñaranda teaches the limitations of Claim 16 on which claim 22 depends.
Peñaranda does not teach that the housing comprises radial maxima and minima configured to guide food flowing around an inside of the housing away from the housing
However, Egger does teach a device for use in a blender (Title) wherein the housing (“Tool cage” [0047] Figure 10 Element 20) comprises radial maxima and minima (See Figure 10 as annotated)
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the invention of Peñaranda with the radial maxima and minima of Egger in order to allow “food to pass in and out of an inside space of the tool cage” [0026]
Regarding Claim 23: Peñaranda as modified by Egger further teaches that the opening (Egger Figure 10) of the housing (Egger “Tool cage” [0047] Figure 10 Element 20) comprises axial maxima and minima (Egger See figure 10 as annotated), preferably wherein the radial maxima and minima respectively correspond to the axial maxima and minima (Egger Shown in Figure 10).
Regarding Claim 26: Peñaranda does not teach that the housing and the insert are made of dishwasher and/or food-safe material
However, Egger does teach that the housing and the insert are made of dishwasher and/or food-safe material (“stainless steel” [0044-0045])
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the invention of Peñaranda with the stainless-steel material of Egger as it has been held that substituting equivalents known in the art for the same purpose, in this case for food safety requires only routine skill in the art. In re Ruff, 256 F.2d 590, 118 USPQ 340 (CCPA 1958)
Claims 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rebordosa (US 2002/0034121 A1) in view of Decman (EP 3051991B1):
PNG
media_image4.png
410
550
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 28: Rebordosa discloses a food processing tool (“bell-shaped shield for use on a household appliance, particularly a hand blender or a hand mixer” [0001])) comprising a rotary knife (“blade” [0043] Figure 3 Element 8) and a housing (“bell shaped shield (Figure 3 Element 1)…with a housing” [0040]) comprising a roof (See Figure 3 as annotated “roof”) surrounding the rotary knife axially on one side and a skirt (“inner wall” Abstract Figure 3 Element 7) surrounding the knife radially about a periphery of a volume of rotation of the knife (shown in Figure 3), wherein the skirt (“inner wall” Abstract Figure 3 Element 7) comprises protrusions (“bulges” [0044] Figure 3 Element 18) extending radially inwards towards the volume of rotation of the knife (shown in Figure 3)
Rebordosa does not teach that the roof comprises ribs extending axially towards the knife and radially between the protrusions.
However, Decman does teach a tool to be used for “mixing, pureeing, chopping and/ or cutting a…food” a kitchen appliance comprising “ribs” ([0029] Figure 3 Element 7) extending axially towards the knife (Shown in Figure 3)
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention, to modify the invention of Rebordosa with the ribs of Decman such that the roof comprises ribs extending axially towards the knife and radially between the protrusions (as Decman provides three distinct ribs and Rebordosa has six distinct protrusions, the configuration would necessitate that the ribs extend radially between the protrusions). Furthermore, this modification would enable the content inside the processing volume to be “deflected downward… [and enable] the mixing of the material to be processed…faster and more efficiently” [0029].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 18 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding the limitations of Claim 18, including ribs on the sides of the housing is known in the art (as set forth in Decman (EP 3051991B1) and further evidenced by Wade (U S9113753B2). However, it would not by obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the combination of Peñaranda with Decman as set forth above with the gap between the ribs and the housing as claimed given that one of ordinary skill in the art would modify the invention of Peñaranda such that the ribs extend onto the inner surface of the housing because Decman shows that the ribs extend axially approximately to the surface of revolution (R, see Fig 2) of the knife.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SOLAN OLIVA whose telephone number is (571-)272-2518. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:00-3:00.
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, Topaz Elliot can be reached at (571) 270-5851. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-270-5569.
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.
/SOLAN OLIVA/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/TOPAZ L. ELLIOTT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761