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/Restriction
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claims 1-12, drawn to a system, classified in A47J43/085.
II. Claims 13-15, drawn to a control system for a blender, classified in G05B15/00.
III. Claims 16-17, drawn to a blade system, classified in A47J43/0722.
IV. Claims 18-20, drawn to a blender container and blender, classified in B65D2501/0018.
The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because:
Inventions I and II- IV are related as combination and subcombination. Inventions in this relationship are distinct if it can be shown that (1) the combination as claimed does not require the particulars of the subcombination as claimed for patentability, and (2) that the subcombination has utility by itself or in other combinations (MPEP § 806.05(c)). In the instant case, the combination as claimed does not require the particulars of the subcombination as claimed because the combination does not require subsequent expiration of the first time interval; a second set of blades at a second speed subsequent to processing by the first set of blades; and a container defining a generally frustoconical shape with ribs. The subcombination has separate utility such as a control system for a device other than a blender, a blender that does not use a control system, and a blade system not utilized in a blender.
Inventions II and III are related as subcombinations disclosed as usable together in a single combination. The subcombinations are distinct if they do not overlap in scope and are not obvious variants, and if it is shown that at least one subcombination is separately usable. In the instant case, subcombination II has separate utility such as control system for a device other than a blender (such as a fan or mixer). See MPEP § 806.05(d).
Inventions II and IV are related as subcombinations disclosed as usable together in a single combination. The subcombinations are distinct if they do not overlap in scope and are not obvious variants, and if it is shown that at least one subcombination is separately usable. In the instant case, subcombination IV has separate utility such as a blender/container that does not use a control system. See MPEP § 806.05(d).
Inventions III and IV are related as subcombinations disclosed as usable together in a single combination. The subcombinations are distinct if they do not overlap in scope and are not obvious variants, and if it is shown that at least one subcombination is separately usable. In the instant case, subcombination III has separate utility such as a blade system not utilized in a blender/container. See MPEP § 806.05(d).
The examiner has required restriction between subcombinations usable together. Where applicant elects a subcombination and claims thereto are subsequently found allowable, any claim(s) depending from or otherwise requiring all the limitations of the allowable subcombination will be examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. See MPEP § 821.04(a). Applicant is advised that if any claim presented in a divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim that is allowable in the present application, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application.
The examiner has required restriction between combination and subcombination inventions. Where applicant elects a subcombination, and claims thereto are subsequently found allowable, any claim(s) depending from or otherwise requiring all the limitations of the allowable subcombination will be examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. See MPEP § 821.04(a). Applicant is advised that if any claim presented in a divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim that is allowable in the present application, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
The inventions have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification and the inventions require a different field of search (see MPEP § 808.02).
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of an invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention.
The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
During a telephone conversation with William Bartow on 4/17/2025 a provisional election was made with traverse to prosecute the invention of Group I, claims 1-12. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 13-20 have been withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: “a respective type of preparation for a the respective type of foodstuff;”. Appropriate correction is required (removal of the bolded “a”).
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.
(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.
Claims 1-9, 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Wulf et al. (US 20150069157 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Wulf discloses A system (30; Fig. 1) comprising:
a container (34; Fig. 1) configured to hold foodstuffs;
a base (32; Fig. 1) configured to be operatively coupled to the container (paragraph 55), wherein the base includes:
two or more sets of blades (includes 110, 112, 114, 116, 118; Fig. 8-12) the two or more sets of blades including:
a first set of blades (116; Fig. 11 and 12) having a first shape configured and adapted to process foodstuffs within the container;
a second set of blades (114; Fig. 9 and 12) operatively connected to the first set of blades having a second shape configured and adapted to blend the foodstuffs within the container (paragraph 73);
and a controller (224; Fig. 21) operatively connected to control a motor to drive the first set of blades and the second set of blades about a rotational axis (paragraph 105), the controller configured to automatically switch between at least a first speed and a second speed based on a predefined program selected by a user (paragraph 138).
Regarding claim 2, Wulf discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the controller includes a memory (228; Fig. 21), the memory configured to store the predefined program (paragraph 128).
Regarding claim 3, Wulf discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the predefined program includes
a respective type of foodstuff (paragraph 116);
a respective type of preparation for a the respective type of foodstuff (paragraph 121);
and a respective timing sequence for the respective type of preparation (paragraphs 117-120).
Regarding claim 4, Wulf discloses the system of claim 3, wherein the respective timing sequence includes a first time interval for operation of the blades at the first speed to process the foodstuffs, a second time interval for operation of the blades at the second speed subsequent to completion of the first time interval to blend the foodstuffs, and a third time interval for operation of the blades at either the first speed, the second speed, or a third speed subsequent to completion of the second time interval to complete preparation of the foodstuffs (paragraphs 118-120 – note that forward pulse is one speed, reverse pulse is a second speed, and it returning to the first speed is a third speed, resulting in three speeds/intervals).
Regarding claim 5, Wulf discloses the system of claim 4, wherein the controller is configured to control the motor to cycle the blades through a series of the first time interval, the second time interval, and the third time interval based on the predefined program, wherein an order of the first time interval, the second time interval, and the third time interval in the timing sequence and a number of cycles is defined by the predefined program (paragraphs 118-120 – note that forward pulse is one speed, reverse pulse is a second speed, and it returning to the first speed is a third speed, resulting in three speeds/intervals).
Regarding claim 6, Wulf discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the first set of blades and the second set of blades are operatively connected such that the first set of blades and the second set of blades rotate together and at the same speed (paragraph 73 and 80).
Regarding claim 7, Wulf discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the first set of blades (116; Fig. 8 and 11) includes a first pair of arcuate blades extending radially outward from a rotational axis of the first set of blades, oriented substantially parallel to a horizontal plane defined perpendicular to the rotational axis (Fig. 2 – note item 112; Fig. 14).
Regarding claim 8, Wulf discloses the system of claim 7, wherein the second set of blades (114; Fig. 8, 9, and 13) includes two or more pointed blades extending radially outward from the rotational axis and extending away from the base at an angle between the horizontal plane and the rotational axis (Fig. 9 and 13).
Regarding claim 9, Wulf discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the container includes a first container portion extending axially from a base portion of the container to a container transition point to define a generally cylindrical shape (see annotated Figure 18; Figs. 16-18), and a second container portion extending in an axial direction from the container transition portion to a lid portion of the container to define a generally frustoconical shape (see annotated Figure 18 – note that the Second Container Portion pointed to extends upward to the remaining part of item 34; Figs. 16-18).
PNG
media_image1.png
250
439
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 18
Regarding claim 12, Wulf discloses the system of claim 9, wherein the first set of blades is contained entirely within the first container portion, and wherein the second set of blades extends from the first container portion into the second container portion (see annotate Figure 18 above).
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 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wulf et al. (US 20150069157 A1) in view of Park et al (US 20220248909 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Wulf discloses the system of claim 9, but fails to disclose wherein the container includes one or more ribs defined on an inner diameter of the container extending radially inward into the container configured to induce turbulent and/or vortical flow of the foodstuffs within the container, the one or more ribs including a first rib portion having a first shape and extending from the container transition portion to a rib transition portion and a second rib portion having a second shape, different from the first shape, and extending from the rib transition portion to a location proximate a lid portion of the container.
However, Park teaches wherein the container includes one or more ribs defined on an inner diameter of the container extending radially inward into the container configured to induce turbulent and/or vortical flow of the foodstuffs within the container (Park: 122, paragraph 137; Fig. 17 and 18),
the one or more ribs including a first rib portion having a first shape and extending from the container transition portion to a rib transition portion and a second rib portion having a second shape, different from the first shape, and extending from the rib transition portion to a location proximate a lid portion of the container (Park: see annotated Figure 17 – note that the structure taught in by Park would modify the container transition portion disclosed by Wulf).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system, as disclosed by Wulf, by providing the ribs, as taught by Park, in order to guide the rotating of food inside the container body (Park: paragraph 90).
PNG
media_image2.png
578
760
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 17
Regarding claim 11, Wulf (as modified) discloses the system of claim 10, wherein the first rib portion is configured to force the foodstuffs upward towards the second rib portion such that the foodstuffs transitions from the first container portion to the second container portion for blending by the second set of blades subsequent processing by the first set of blades (Park: paragraph 90).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM A CENTANNI whose telephone number is (703)756-1328. The examiner can normally be reached IFP M-F 7:30-16:30 (every other F off).
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, Christopher Templeton can be reached on (571) 270-1477. 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.
/A.A.C./Examiner, Art Unit 3725
/Christopher L Templeton/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3725
