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
After further consideration, the restriction requirement mailed 10/16/2025 is withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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, 2, 11, 13, and 17, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang (CN209172094U, a machine translation is attached) in view of Smit (WO2018078265, a machine translation is attached).
Regarding claim 1, Yang teaches a food processing system (shown in figures 1 and 2), comprising: a processing container (container item 11) having a motor-driven processing blade positioned at a bottom of the processing container (blade items 163 which are at the bottom of item 11); a lid receivable atop the processing container (lid item 12); a motor(item 13)-driven dasher assembly connected to the lid and being configured to scrape interior sidewalls of the processing container (item 14 is considered capable of scraping material off of the container sidewalls extending to item 14, the material being worked upon is considered intended use), the motor-driven dasher assembly having a hub (item 15 is considered reading on a hub); and a motor having an output shaft (see figure 1 item 13 with shaft extending downward). Regarding claim 1, Yang is silent to at least the output shaft being moveable between a raised position where the output shaft is vertically spaced from the hub of the motor driven dasher assembly, and a lowered position where the output shaft is engaged with the hub. Regarding claim 1, Smit teaches at least the output shaft being moveable between a raised position where the output shaft is vertically spaced from the hub of the motor driven dasher assembly (figure 1 the raised position is where item 51 is removed from the blender assembly 1), and a lowered position where the output shaft is engaged with the hub (figure 1 configuration where item 51 is engaged with item 3 which is considered reading on a hub). Regarding claim 1, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the shaft configuration of Yang with the removable configuration of Smit in order to allow for easier cleaning of the blending apparatus.
Regarding claim 2, Yang il silent to the output shaft is movable in a vertical direction along a rotational axis of the motor driven dasher assembly. Regarding claim 2, Smit teaches the output shaft is movable in a vertical direction along a rotational axis of the motor driven dasher assembly (item 51 is considered capable of moving vertically in the axis of the motor in order to be disassembled as shown in figure 1). Regarding claim 2, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the shaft configuration of Yang with the removable configuration of Smit in order to allow for easier cleaning of the blending apparatus.
Regarding claim 11, Yang is silent to the specific taper shape of the output shaft. Regarding claim 11, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the shaft configuration of Yang with the removable configuration of Smit in order to allow for easier cleaning of the blending apparatus. Regarding claim 11, absent any unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date to modify the shape of the shaft in order to obtain the desired fit with the tool being driven by the shaft since it is well settled that it is an obvious matter of design choice to change the general shape or size of a known element in the absence of a disclosed non-obvious advantage associated with the change. Gardner vs. TEC Systems Inc., 725 F.2d 1338,
1349-50 (Fed. Cir. 1984); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 555 (CCPA 1975); In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 672 (CCPA 1966).
Regarding claim 13, Yang teaches a method for processing food (page 2 of machine translation, first line of the description teaches food cooking machine which is used to process food, see figures 1 and 2), comprising the steps of: coupling a dasher assembly (item 145 and item 15 are considered the dasher assembly) to a processing container such that a scraper blade of the dasher assembly is disposed within the processing container (shown in figure 1 item 145 is in processing container item 11); positioning the processing container on a base (item 30) of a food processor so as to engage a blade hub of the processing container with a rotatable output shaft of a motor housed in the base (item 11 is housed on item 30, with blade hub 163); actuating the dasher motor to rotate the scraper blade within the processing container (item 13 drives item 14 inside of container item 11). Regarding claim 13, Yang is silent to lowering a dasher motor to drivingly connect an output shaft of the dasher motor with a drive hub of the dasher assembly. Regarding claim 13, Smit teaches lowering a dasher motor to drivingly connect an output shaft of the dasher motor with a drive hub of the dasher assembly (see figure 1 disassembled state, item 7 comprises the motor for the shaft 51 and would inherently have to be lowered in order to assembly the blender). Regarding claim 13, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the shaft configuration of Yang with the removable configuration of Smit in order to allow for easier cleaning of the blending apparatus.
Regarding claim 17, Yang teaches a food processing system (shown in figures 1 and 2), comprising: a base having a motor (page 4 13th paragraph of machine translation teaches a frame 30 which his considered reading on a base and teaches a stirring motor); a processing container (container item 11) having a motor-driven processing blade positioned at a bottom of the processing container (item 163) and engageable with an output shaft of the motor in the base (shaft item 161); a lid receivable atop the processing container (lid item 12); a dasher assembly (item 13, 15, and 14) connected to the lid (item 13 connects to item 12) and having at least one scraper blade disposed in the processing container (item 14) and being configured to scrape interior sidewalls of the processing container (item 14 is considered capable of scraping material on the interior sidewalls of item 11 that extends to item 14); and a dasher motor positioned above the processing container (item 13), the dasher motor having an output shaft that is selectively engageable with the dasher assembly (see figure 1 item 13 is shown with an output shaft extending downwards), the dasher motor being configured to rotate the at least one scraper blade upon actuation of the dasher motor (item 13 is used to drive item 14). Regarding claim 17, Yang is silent to wherein the output shaft of the dasher motor is moveable between a raised position where the output shaft is vertically spaced from the dasher assembly, and a lowered position where the output shaft is engaged with the dasher assembly. Regarding claim 17, Smit teaches at least the output shaft of the dasher motor being moveable between a raised position where the output shaft is vertically spaced from the dasher assembly (figure 1 the raised position is where item 51 is removed from the blender assembly 1), and a lowered position where the output shaft is engaged with the dasher assembly (figure 1 configuration where item 51 is engaged with item 3 which is considered part of the dasher assembly). Regarding claim 17, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the shaft configuration of Yang with the removable configuration of Smit in order to allow for easier cleaning of the blending apparatus.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 14, 15, 16, 18, and 19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 3, the prior art does not teach or fairly suggest a food processing system with the combination of the processing container having a blade positioned in the bottom of the processing container, a motor driven dasher connected to the lid having a hub, a motor having an output shaft with the two-position configuration, and the motor operatively connected to the support member extending from the base for linear movement along the support member.
U.S. Publication 2019/0380537 to Kim teaches a noise blocking device including a noise blocking device (paragraph 46 and figure 2 item 20). Regarding claim 4, the prior art does not teach or fairly suggest a food processing system with the combination of the processing container having a blade positioned in the bottom of the processing container, a motor driven dasher connected to the lid having a hub, a motor having an output shaft with the two-position configuration, wherein moving the sound enclosure from the closed position to the open position causes movement of the output shaft from the lowered position to the raised position.
U.S. Publication 2019/0380537 to Kim teaches a noise blocking device including a noise blocking device (paragraph 46 and figure 2 item 20). Regarding claim 14, the prior art does not teach or fairly suggest a method of processing food including the dasher assembly, blade hub, and a sound enclosure used to lower the dasher motor.
Regarding claim 18, the prior art does not teach or fairly suggest a food processing system with the combination of the base having a motor, the dasher assembly, dasher motor, two-position configuration and the dasher motor is operatively connected to the support member for linear movement along the support member.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. U.S. Publication 2023/0148799 to Roberts (relying on the Feb 25, 2022 filling date) teaches an agitating member 60 (figures 4, 9, and 10 paragraph 89) and a wiper (paragraph 90) and a reciprocating motion of the second agitating member (figures 9 and 10) with one or more blades (items 46 and paragraph 82) at the bottom of the container engaging the base (body item 44).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANSHU BHATIA whose telephone number is (571)270-7628. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 11 a.m. to 7:30 p.m..
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 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.
/ANSHU BHATIA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1774