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.
Claims 1, 3-9, 11-17, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sergyenko et al. (US 2022/0240723). Regarding claim 1 Sergyenko discloses an immersion blender comprising: a housing (11); a battery pack (72 and optionally 44) selectively coupled to and removable from the housing (see [0044]: “removable”); an implement (12) including a shaft cover extending from the housing along an axis (see Fig. 1); a shaft located and rotatable in the shaft cover (understood from the term "immersion blender" and reference character 12 in Fig. 1); a motor (70) located in the housing and operably connected to a first end of the shaft; an implement tool operably connected to a second end of the shaft (understood from the term "immersion blender" and reference character 12 in Fig. 1); and a user interface including a power button (24 or 26) and a lock button (26 or 24) configured to activate the motor only while the power button and the lock button are simultaneously held (see [0037]). Regarding claim 3, the housing defines a handle portion, a battery connection portion, and an implement connection portion, the handle portion located between the battery connection portion and the implement connection portion (see Fig. 1). Regarding claim 4, the handle portion defines a cross-section that is smaller than a cross-section of the battery connection portion and the implement connection portion (see Fig. 1). Regarding claim 5, it is inherent that a battery has an anode and cathode and that both are in electrical connection electrical components which the battery powers. Regarding claim 6, the battery pack includes a major surface (that of 44) opposite the shaft and the immersion blender is configured to stably rest on the major surface with the axis in a vertical orientation. Regarding claim 7, the battery pack includes a perimeter defined by a length and a width and a handle portion is substantially aligned with a center of mass of the battery pack between the length and the width (see Fig. 10). Regarding claim 8, the implement includes an implement connection port with a track defined between a hook-shaped interlock and a bottom cam surface, and the bottom cam surface is entirely arch-shaped (see Figs. 2 and 3). Regarding claim 9, the implement connection portion defines a handle connection port that includes a protrusion that is guided by the bottom cam surface into engagement with the hook-shaped interlock (see Figs. 2 and 3). Regarding claim 11, the lock button is located in a depression defined by a handle of the housing inset from a location of the handle corresponding to the power button (see Figs. 18 and 19). Regarding claim 12, the power button extends outwardly from a handle portion; see Figs 18 and 19 for the relative positions of the buttons. Regarding claim 13, at least one of the power button and the lock button is configured as a touch button (see Figs. 2, 18 and 19). Regarding claim 14, the battery pack is configured to be recharged when removed from the housing (see [0044]). Regarding claim 15, at least one of the battery pack and a handle portion includes a battery supporting member that selectively locks the battery pack to the handle portion (see Fig. 10). Regarding claim 16, Sergyenko discloses an immersion blender comprising: a housing (11) defining a handle portion, a battery connection portion, and an implement connection portion, the handle portion is located between the battery connection portion and the implement connection portion; an implement (12) including an implement connection port with a track defined between a hook-shaped interlock and a bottom cam surface, and the bottom cam surface is entirely arch-shaped (see Fig. 2); a battery pack containing on or more modules (72 or a portion thereof) selectively coupled to and removable from the housing (see [0044]: “removable”); the implement including a shaft cover extending from the housing along an axis; a shaft located and rotatable in the shaft cover (understood from the term "immersion blender" and reference character 12 in Fig. 1); a motor (70) located in the housing and operably connected to a first end of the shaft; an implement tool operably connected to a second end of the shaft (understood from the term "immersion blender" and reference character 12 in Fig. 1); and a user interface including a power button (24) and a lock button (26) configured to activate the motor only while the power button and the lock button are simultaneously held (see [0037]). Regarding claim 17, the implement connection portion defines a handle connection port that includes a protrusion that is guided by the bottom cam surface into engagement with the hook-shaped interlock (see Fig. 2). Regarding claim 19, Sergyenko discloses an immersion blender comprising a housing (11) defining a handle portion extending along an axis; a battery pack (72 and optionally 44) selectively coupled to the housing; an implement (12) including a shaft cover extending from the housing along the axis; a shaft located and rotatable in the shaft cover (understood from the term "immersion blender" and reference character 12 in Fig. 1); a motor (70) located in the housing and operably connected to a first end of the shaft; an implement tool operably connected to a second end of the shaft (understood from the term "immersion blender" and reference character 12 in Fig. 1); and a user interface including a power button (24) and a lock button (26) configured to activate the motor only while the power button and the lock button are simultaneously held the power button extends out from the handle portion a first distance from the axis and the lock button is one of flush or recessed from the handle portion and extends a second distance from the axis that is less than the first distance (see Figs. 18 and 19). Regarding claim 20, the battery pack includes a major surface (that of 44) opposite a housing connection surface of the battery pack that selectively couples to the housing and the immersion blender is configured to stably rest on the major surface with the axis in a vertical orientation.
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.
Claims 12 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sergyenko et al. (US 2022/0240723). The blender of Sergyenko was discussed above. While claim 12 is anticipated by Sergyenko as discussed above based on the fact that the claims recite two buttons without positively reciting any electrical circuitry that would physically distinguish the buttons, to further prosecution is it is noted that In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) held the obviousness of relocating electrical parts and In re Gazda, 219 F.2d 449, 104 USPQ 400 (CCPA 1955) held the obviousness of reversing parts; therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date to have chosen which button is closer or farther from a given end of the blender. Regarding claim 18, Sergyenko does not disclose a biasing member exactly as claim, however, biasing member (322) is disclosed and serves as evidence that utilizing a biasing member would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date.
Claims 1-9 and 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Sergyenko et al. (US 2022/0240723) in view of DynamixNomad. The blender of Sergyenko was discussed above and while claim 1, 3-9, 11-17, 19 and 20 are considered anticipated by Sergyenko alone, it is noted that DynamixNomad shows more explicitly the conventional manner in which a shaft of an inversion blender passes through a shaft cover and attaches to an implement tool (see especially page 25). Regarding claim 2, Sergyenko does not disclose the battery voltage. DynamixNomad teaches battery voltage being 12 volts. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have provided a battery voltage of 12 volts to adequately power the blender (see page 22, line AC585).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sergyenko et al.
(US 2022/0240723) in view of Hensel (US 2016/0213199). The blender Sergyenko was discussed above.
An audible click is not explicitly disclosed. Hensel teaches an audible click (see [0155]). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have provided an audible click as taught by Hensel to
affirm secure fastening.
Claims 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sergyenko et al.
(US 2022/0240723) in view of DynamixNomad and further in view of Hensel (US 2016/0213199). The
blender Sergyenko in view of DynamixNomad was discussed above. An audible click is not explicitly
disclosed. Hensel teaches an audible click (see [0155]). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have provided an audible click as taught by Hensel to affirm secure fastening.
Response to Arguments
Contrary to applicant’s remarks, Sergyenko expressly discloses the battery being removable in [0044].
Contrary to applicant’s remarks, Figs. 18 and 19 of Sergyenko show button 26 being located in a depression relative to the location of button 24.
Contrary to applicant’s remarks pertaining to claim 19, in Figs. 18 and 19 of Sergyenko, which are different views of the same structure, it is seen that button 26 is located closer to the axis than button 24.
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