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.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Boyce (US 4,487,509). Boyce discloses a food processor, comprising: a base unit (18) including a housing enclosing a drive motor (108), the housing defining: an upper surface with a drive connection (114) of the base unit mounted on the upper surface and connected with the motor through the housing; and a collar (78) extending upwardly from the upper surface and surrounding the drive connection; a jar assembly (12, 14) mountable on the base unit and enclosing a food-processing cavity, the jar assembly being mountable on the base unit by receipt of a lower edge thereof within the collar; a food processing implement rotatably mounted within the jar assembly and configured to be driven by the motor when the jar assembly is mounted on the base unit (see Figs. 1 and 3).
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Adajian (US 3,575,524). Regarding claim 12, Adajian discloses a food processor, comprising: a base unit (10) including a housing enclosing a drive motor (36), the housing defining: an upper surface with a drive connection (72) of the base unit mounted on the upper surface and connected with the motor through the housing; and a collar (48) extending upwardly from the upper surface and surrounding the drive connection; a jar assembly (18) mountable on the base unit and enclosing a food-processing cavity, the jar assembly being mountable on the base unit by receipt of a lower edge thereof within the collar; a food processing implement rotatably mounted within the jar assembly and configured to be driven by the motor when the jar assembly is mounted on the base unit (see col. 2, lines 65 to 75; Figs. 1 and 2). Regarding claim 13, the collar defines a plurality of alignment tabs (76) extending inwardly toward the drive connection along the upper surface of the housing; and the jar assembly includes a jar housing defining the lower edge of the jar assembly, the jar housing defining a plurality of detents (see col. 3, lines 39-42) corresponding with respective ones of the plurality of alignment tabs for receipt thereof into the detents when the jar assembly is mounted on the base unit.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adajian (US 3,575,524) in view of Venus (US 2005/0007869). The food processor of Adajian was discussed above. Applying a trim
By hot-foil stamping is not disclosed. Venus teaches apply a trim by hot-foil stamping, for decorative purposes (see [0058]). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have applied trim by hot-foil stamping, for decorative purposes.
Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boyce (US 4,487,509) in view of Proffitt (US 4,616,169). Regarding claim 1, Boyce discloses a food processor, comprising: a base unit (18) including a housing enclosing a drive motor (108), the housing defining a battery receiving cavity (82) along a portion thereof with a plurality of terminals exposed therein (see Figs. 5 and 8); a jar assembly (12, 14) mountable on the base unit and enclosing a food-processing cavity; a food processing implement (16 or a portion thereof) rotatably mounted within the jar assembly and configured to be driven by the motor when the jar assembly is mounted on the base; and a battery (118) mountable in the battery receiving cavity in electrical connection with the plurality of terminals, wherein the base unit is configured to operably power the drive motor using the battery. However, Boyce does not disclose the battery being releasably mounted to an exterior cavity of the housing. Proffitt teaches releasably mounting a battery to a cavity (25) on the exterior of the housing having exterior terminals (32). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have located the battery in an exterior cavity as taught by Proffitt for ease of removal for recharging. Regarding claim 2, the housing of the base unit defines: an upper surface with a drive connection (114) of the base unit mounted on the upper surface and connected with the motor through the housing; and a collar (78) extending upwardly from the upper surface and surrounding the drive connection, wherein the jar assembly is mountable on the base unit by receipt of a lower edge thereof within the collar (see Figs. 1 and 3).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boyce (US 4,487,509) in view of Proffitt (US 4,616,169) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Venus (US 2005/0007869). Applying a trim by hot- foil stamping is not disclosed. Venus teaches apply a trim by hot-foil stamping, for decorative purposes (see [0058]). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have applied trim by hot-foil stamping, for decorative purposes.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adajian (US 3,575,524) in view of Proffitt (US 4,616,169). Regarding claim 1, Adajian discloses a food processor, comprising: a base unit (10) including a housing enclosing a drive motor (36); a jar assembly (18) mountable on the
base unit and enclosing a food-processing cavity; and a food processing implement rotatably mounted within the jar assembly and configured to be driven by the motor when the jar assembly is mounted on the base (see col. 2, lines 65 to 75; Figs. 1 and 2). However, a battery releasably mounted in a cavity on the exterior of the housing and terminals are not disclosed. Proffitt teaches releasably mounting a battery to a cavity (25) on the exterior of the housing having exterior terminals (32). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have provided a battery in an exterior cavity as taught by Proffitt to enhance portability. Regarding claim 2, the housing of the base unit of Adajian defines an upper surface with a drive connection (72) of the base unit mounted on the upper surface and connected with the motor through the housing; and a collar (48) extending upwardly from the upper surface and surrounding the drive connection, wherein the jar assembly is mountable on the base unit by receipt of a lower edge thereof within the collar (see col. 2, lines 65 to 75; Figs. 1 and 2). Regarding claim 3, Adajian further discloses that the collar defines a plurality of alignment tabs (76) extending inwardly toward the drive connection along the upper surface of the housing; and the jar assembly includes a jar housing defining the lower edge of the jar assembly, the jar housing defining a plurality of detents (see col. 3, lines 39-42) corresponding with respective ones of the plurality of alignment tabs for receipt thereof into the detents when the jar assembly is mounted on the base unit.
Claims 1, 5-8, 10, 11 and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williams (US 4,506,836) in view of Proffitt (US 4,616,169). Regarding claim 1, Williams discloses a food processor, comprising: a base unit (10) including a housing enclosing a drive motor (11); a jar assembly (18) mountable on the base unit and enclosing a food-processing cavity; and a food processing implement (19) rotatably mounted within the jar assembly and configured to be driven by the motor when the jar assembly is mounted on the base. However, Williams does not disclose a battery which releasably mounted to an exterior cavity of the housing. Proffitt teaches releasably mounting a battery to a cavity (25) on the exterior of the housing having exterior terminals (32). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have provided a battery in an exterior cavity as taught by Proffitt to enhance portability. Regarding claim 5, the jar assembly (18) of Williams includes jar housing having a handle (23) on a first side thereof; and an interlock channel (20) defined on a second side of the jar housing opposite the first side of the jar housing. Regarding claim 6, the jar assembly of Williams further includes an interlock member (22) movably mounted in the interlock channel and moveable into engagement with a lockout mechanism (14, 16) in the base unit and a lid (28) positionable in an open position and a closed position over an open end of the jar housing, the lid operably engaging the interlock member when in the closed position such that the interlock member engages the lockout mechanism when the lid is in the closed position and is disengaged with the lockout mechanism when the lid is in the open position. Regarding claim 7, the lid is moveable Into and out of the closed position by rotation of the lid within an open end of a body of the jar assembly (see col. 1, lines 34-35). Regarding claim 8, in Williams the base defines a front side having a user interface (25, 27) thereon and a back side opposite the front side; and the lockout mechanism is positioned on the back side of the base such that a use position of the jar assembly relative to the base is defined with the interlock channel aligned with the lockout mechanism and the handle oriented toward the front of the base unit (see Figs. 1 and 2). Regarding claim 10, removing radially is taught by Proffitt (see Fig. 2). Regarding claim 11, the battery cavity taught by Proffitt is in a projecting corner of the housing (see Figs. 1 and 2) and see the lower side feet/tabs of Williams (Fig. 2). Regarding claim 15, Williams discloses a food processor, comprising: a base unit (10) including a housing enclosing a drive motor (11); a jar assembly (18) mountable on the base unit and enclosing a food-processing cavity and including: a jar housing having a handle (23) on a first side thereof; and an interlock channel (20) defined on a second side of the jar housing opposite the first side of the jar housing; and a food processing implement (19) rotatably mounted within the jar assembly and configured to be driven by the motor when the jar assembly is mounted on the base unit. However, Williams does not disclose a battery which releasably mounted to an exterior cavity of the housing. Proffitt teaches releasably mounting a battery to a cavity (25) on the exterior of the housing having exterior terminals (32). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have provided a battery in an exterior cavity as taught by Proffitt to enhance portability. Regarding claim 16, the jar assembly further includes an interlock member (22) movably mounted in the interlock channel and moveable into engagement with a lockout mechanism (14, 16) in the base unit. Regarding claim 17, the jar assembly further includes a lid (28) positionable in an open position and a closed position over an open end of the jar housing, the lid operably engaging the interlock member when in the closed position such that the interlock member engages the lockout mechanism when the lid is in the closed position and is disengaged with the lockout mechanism when the lid is in the open position. Regarding claim 18, the lid is moveable Into and out of the closed position by rotation of the lid within an open end of a body of the jar assembly (see col. 1, lines 34-35). Regarding claim 19, the base defines a front side having a user interface (25, 27) thereon and a back side opposite the front side. Regarding claim 20, the lockout mechanism is positioned on the back side of the base such that a use position of the jar assembly relative to the base is defined with the interlock channel aligned with the lockout mechanism and the handle oriented toward the front of the base unit (see Figs. 1 and 2).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williams (US 4,506,836) in
view of Proffitt (US 4,616,169) as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Grepper (US 2015/0114024). Battery charge indicator lights are not disclosed by Williams or Proffitt. Gepper teaches
battery charge indicator lights (see [0057]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art
to have provided battery charge indicator lights as taught by Grepper to advise a user concerning the
amount of charge a battery currently has.
Response to Arguments
The Oxford English Dictionary definition of “food processor” is “An electrical kitchen appliance for chopping, mixing, or puréeing foods.” Contrary to applicant’s remarks, the food processors of Boyce and Adajian meet the definition of food processor.
Proffitt (US 4,616,169) is relied upon concerning the new claim limitations.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID L SORKIN whose telephone number is (571)272-1148. The examiner can normally be reached 7am-3:30pm.
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.
DAVID L. SORKIN
Examiner
Art Unit 1774
/DAVID L SORKIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1774