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 .
Response to Amendment
This Final Rejection is in response to the Amendment dated November 4, 2025 filed in response to the Non-final Rejection Office action dated August 8, 2025.
The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections in the previous action are withdrawn in view of the amendments made to the claims. However, the claims as amended continue to be unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103 as explained below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, starting on page 9 of the Amendment have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the previous rejections have been withdrawn. However, new grounds of rejection necessitated by the claim amendments are presented below.
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 16-20 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.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the access hole" in the 8th line of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 16 will be interpreted as claiming the sound enclosure defines an access hole, as previously recited, to provide sufficient antecedent basis for the term “access hole” in the remainder of the claim.
Claims 17-20 are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
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.
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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2022/0240722 A1 by Kim, hereinafter “Kim”, in view of Chinese Patent Publication No. CN 101199393 A by Martin et al., hereinafter “Martin”, and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 4,561,782 to Jacobsen et al., hereinafter “Jacobsen”.
Regarding claim 1, Kim discloses a blending apparatus (apparatus shown in Fig. 4; ¶[0016]), comprising:
a blender jar defining a blending cavity (blender jar container 30 in Fig. 4 defining cavity accommodating space 32; ¶[0035]);
a lid positionable over the blender jar, the lid defining an opening into the blending cavity (lid 40 in Fig. 4 which defines opening exhaust holes 44; ¶[0041]); and
an enclosable sound dampener positionable around the blender jar and the lid (enclosure 20 in Fig. 1 surrounds container 30 and lid 40 as shown in Fig. 2; ¶[0032]), the enclosable sound dampener defining an access hole with a periphery (upper enclosure 21 in Fig. 4 is shown with an access hole with a periphery in which trap 10 sits as shown in Fig. 1), and the access hole corresponding to the opening in the lid (Figs. 8-12 show the access hole through upper enclosure 21 corresponds to opening exhaust holes 44 in lid 40).
Kim does not disclose from claim 1:
a gasket positioned around a periphery of the opening in the lid;
a tamper simultaneously disposed inside both of the access hole and the opening during operation of the blending apparatus, the tamper comprising:
a tamper handle at a proximal end of the tamper;
a body portion opposite the tamper handle and extending to a distal end of the tamper;
a shoulder protrusion sealingly engaged with the lid at the gasket; and
a lip protrusion positioned proximal to the shoulder protrusion between the shoulder protrusion and the tamper handle, the lip protrusion sealingly engaged with a top surface of the enclosable sound dampener around the access hole above the lid.
In the same field of household kitchen appliances, Martin discloses (Fig. 1; ¶[0037]):
a blender jar defining a blending cavity (jar container 2 in Fig. 1);
a lid positionable over the blender jar (lid 4 in Fig. 1), the lid defining an opening into the blending cavity (central opening 41 in Fig. 1; ¶[0040]); and
a tamper disposed through the opening of the lid (tamper stirring rod 5 in Fig. 1), the tamper comprising:
a tamper handle at a proximal end of the tamper (handle 50 in Fig. 1; ¶[0041]);
a body portion opposite the tamper handle and extending to a distal end of the tamper (body 52 in Fig. 1; ¶[0042]);
a shoulder protrusion sealingly engaged with opening of the lid (See “Shoulder” annotation to Fig. 2 of Martin reproduced below. The Shoulder engages central opening 41 as shown in Fig. 1); and
a lip protrusion positioned proximal to the shoulder protrusion between the shoulder protrusion and the tamper handle (lip protrusion baffle 51 in Fig. 2), the lip protrusion sealingly engaged with a top surface of the lid (Fig. 1 shows baffle 51 sealingly engages the depression within the lid surrounding central opening 41).
PNG
media_image1.png
1212
706
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Martin’s blender jar into Kim’s blending apparatus by replacing Kim’s lid 40 with Martin’s lid 4 and replacing Kim’s foreign-material trap 10 with Martin’s stirring rod 5 such that rod 5 may be manipulated through the access hole in Kim’s upper enclosure 21. A person of ordinary skill would have recognized applying the teaching of Martin to the apparatus of Kim would achieve the predictable result of Kim’s apparatus provided with a tamping and stirring rod assembly as Martin teaches.
The prior art reference combination of Kim in view of Martin does not teach a gasket positioned around a periphery of the opening in the lid as claim 1 claims.
In the same field of household appliance blenders, Jacobsen teaches it was known before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a gasket between the stirring rod and the opening in the lid of the blender jar to seal the open space therebetween. See Figs. 1 and 2 and its written description at column 3, line 25 through column 4 line 22.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a gasket in Martin’s central opening 41 to seal the open space between Martin’s lid 4 and the Shoulder and baffle 51 of stir rod 5 in the same way Jacobsen teaches using collar 40 as a gasket to seal the open space between cap 30 and stir rod 10. A person of ordinary skill would have recognized applying the teaching of Jacobsen to Martin’s lid would achieve the predictable result of providing improved sealing between Martin’s lid 4 and rod 5.
Regarding claim 2, the prior art reference combination of Kim in view of Martin and further in view of Jacobsen renders the blending apparatus according to claim 1 unpatentable as explained above. When Martin’s blender jar is incorporated into Kim’s blending assembly as explained in the rejection of claim 1 above, the access hole is aligned with the opening such that while the enclosable sound dampener is in the closed state:
content can be added into the blending cavity when the tamper is removed from the access hole and the opening (Martin’s stir rod 5 in Fig. 1 may be removed so that contents may be added to jar 4 via central opening 41); or
the tamper can engage with at least one of the blender jar or the blending cavity through the access hole and the opening (Martin’s stir rod 5 can engage the blending cavity of jar container 4 as shown in Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 3, the prior art reference combination of Kim in view of Martin and further in view of Jacobsen renders the blending apparatus according to claim 1 unpatentable as explained above. Kim further discloses wherein the enclosable sound dampener comprises:
an open state in which the blender jar is insertable into and removable from the enclosable sound dampener (Fig. 2 shows enclosure 20 in an open state where jar 30 is insertable and removable therefrom); and
a closed state in which insertion and removal of the blender jar is prevented (Fig. 1 shows enclosure 20 in a closed state where insertion and removal of jar 30 is prevented).
Regarding claim 4, the prior art reference combination of Kim in view of Martin and further in view of Jacobsen renders the blending apparatus according to claim 1 unpatentable as explained above. Kim further discloses wherein the enclosable sound dampener comprises:
a rear enclosure portion (lower enclosure portion 22 in Figs. 1 and 2 encloses the rear portion of jar 30); and
a front enclosure portion pivotably connected to the rear enclosure portion (upper enclosure portion 21 in Figs. 1 and 2 covers the front portion of jar 30 and is pivotably connected to lower enclosure portion 22).
Regarding claim 5, the prior art reference combination of Kim in view of Martin and further in view of Jacobsen renders the blending apparatus according to claim 4 unpatentable as explained above. Kim further discloses the enclosable sound dampener comprises a base attachable to at least the rear enclosure portion. See paragraph [0031] of Kim.
Regarding claim 6, the prior art reference combination of Kim in view of Martin and further in view of Jacobsen renders the blending apparatus according to claim 1 unpatentable as explained above. Martin further discloses the lip protrusion comprises a lip diameter and the shoulder protrusion comprises a shoulder diameter less than the lip diameter (Fig. 2 of Martin as annotated above shows the diameter of the Shoulder is less than the diameter of lip baffle 51), the shoulder diameter configured to pass through the access hole (when Martin’s lid 4 and stirring rod 5 are incorporated into Kim’s blending apparatus as explained in the rejection of claim 1 above, Martin’s Shoulder would extend through the access hole in Kim’s upper enclosure 21).
Regarding claim 7, the prior art reference combination of Kim in view of Martin and further in view of Jacobsen renders the blending apparatus according to claim 1 unpatentable as explained above. Martin further discloses the lip protrusion defines an upper mechanical stop for the tamper (lip baffle 51 is an upper mechanical stop preventing stir rod 5 from being inserted further into container 2) and the shoulder protrusion defines a lower mechanical stop for the tamper (the Shoulder as annotated in Fig. 2 above is a lower mechanical stop limiting movement of stir rod 5 within central opening 41).
Regarding claim 8, the prior art reference combination of Kim in view of Martin and further in view of Jacobsen renders the blending apparatus according to claim 1 unpatentable as explained above. When Jacobsen’s flexible collar 40 is incorporated into central opening 41 of Martin’s lid 4, flexible collar 40 will scrape the blending cavity contents of the surface of stir rod 5 when stir rod 5 is removed therefrom.
Regarding claim 9, the prior art reference combination of Kim in view of Martin and further in view of Jacobsen renders the blending apparatus according to claim 1 unpatentable as explained above. Martin further discloses body portion 52 in Fig. 1 has a uniform cross-section.
Regarding claim 10, the prior art reference combination of Kim in view of Martin and further in view of Jacobsen renders the blending apparatus according to claim 1 unpatentable as explained above. Kim teaches it is known to incorporate vents (exhaust holes 44 in Fig. 4) for evacuating air from the blenders jar. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate air vent exhaust holes into Martin’s lid 4 to allow air to escape from the interior or jar 2 during manipulation of stirring rod 5 therein in the same way Kim teaches exhausting air from inside container 20 using exhaust holes 44.
Claims 11-12 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2010/0038462 A1 by Kolar et al., hereinafter “Kolar”, and further in view of Martin.
Regarding claim 11, Kim discloses a blending apparatus (apparatus shown in Fig. 4; ¶[0016]), comprising:
a first enclosure portion (lower enclosure portion 22 in Figs. 1 and 2);
a second enclosure portion pivotably connected to the first enclosure portion, the first enclosure portion and the second enclosure portion defining an internal volume (upper enclosure portion 21 in Figs. 1 and 2 is pivotably connected to lower enclosure portion 22 to define an internal volume which may hold jar 30 as shown in Fig. 2);
a blender jar positionable within the internal volume (blender jar container 30 in Figs. 1 and 2);
a base on which the enclosure is mountable (¶[0030] discloses enclosure 20 in Fig. 1 is detachably installed on a base which is not shown in the drawings); and
an access hole defined by the second enclosure portion (upper enclosure 21 in Fig. 4 is shown with an access hole with a periphery in which trap 10 sits as shown in Fig. 1).
Paragraph [0030] of Kim discloses enclosure 20 is detachably installable on a base not shown in the drawings. However, Kim does not expressly disclose a mount on the base which is positioned within the internal volume with the mount being sized and shaped to receive the blender jar as claim 11 claims.
In the same field of household appliance blenders, Kolar teaches a blending apparatus in Fig. 7 with enclosure 110 mounted on base member 112 and blender jar container 120 mounted on pedestal 124. See paragraphs [0034] and [0035].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a mount positioned within the internal volume of Kim’s enclosure with the mount sized and shaped to receive a blender jar in the same way Kolar teaches. A person of ordinary skill would have recognized applying the teaching of Kolar to the apparatus of Kim would achieve the predictable result of including a mount in Kim’s apparatus.
The prior art reference combination of Kim in view of Kolar does not disclose from claim 11:
a tamper comprising un upper mechanical stop and a lower mechanical stop; and
a blender jar comprising a lid interfacing the lower mechanical stop of the tamper.
In the same field of household kitchen appliances, Martin discloses (Fig. 1; ¶[0037]), a blender jar defining a blending cavity (jar container 2 in Fig. 1), a lid positionable over the blender jar (lid 4 in Fig. 1) with the lid defining an opening into the blending cavity (central opening 41 in Fig. 1; ¶[0040]), and a tamper disposed through the opening of the lid (tamper stirring rod 5 in Fig. 1). Martin further discloses the tamper has an upper mechanical stop for (lip baffle 51 is an upper mechanical stop preventing stir rod 5 from being inserted further into container 2) and a lower mechanical stop interfacing the lid (the Shoulder as annotated in Fig. 2 above is a lower mechanical stop limiting movement of stir rod 5 within central opening 41 of lid 4).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Martin’s blender jar into Kim’s blending apparatus by replacing Kim’s lid 40 with Martin’s lid 4 and replacing Kim’s foreign-material trap 10 with Martin’s stirring rod 5 such that rod 5 may be manipulated through the access hole in Kim’s upper enclosure 21. A person of ordinary skill would have recognized applying the teaching of Martin to the apparatus of Kim would achieve the predictable result of Kim’s apparatus provided with a tamping and stirring rod assembly as Martin teaches.
Regarding claim 12, the prior art reference combination of Kim in view of Kolar and further in view of Martin renders the blending apparatus of claim 11 unpatentable as explained above. When Martin’s blender jar is incorporated into Kim’s blending apparatus as explained in the rejection of claim 11 above, Martin’s blender jar comprises lid 4 with opening 41 where opening 41 is concentric with the access hole of Kim’s upper enclosure portion 21 along a central axis when upper enclosure portion 21 is closed shut against lower enclosure portion 22 as shown in Fig. 1 of Kim.
Regarding claim 14, the prior art reference combination of Kim in view of Kolar and further in view of Martin renders the blending apparatus of claim 11 unpatentable as explained above. Kim further discloses:
the first enclosure portion is positionally fixed (lower enclosure portion 22 in Fig. 1 is positionally fixed when mounted to a base); and
the second enclosure portion is configured to lift open relative to the first enclosure portion to expose the internal volume (upper enclosure portion 21 pivots to lift open relative to lower portion 22 as shown in Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 15, the prior art reference combination of Kim in view of Kolar and further in view of Martin renders the blending apparatus of claim 11 unpatentable as explained above. Kolar’s pedestal mount 124 in Fig. 7 is sized and shaped such that it is capable of receiving different blender jars.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Kolar and Martin and further in view of Jacobsen.
Regarding claim 13, the prior art reference combination of Kim in view of Kolar and further in view of Martin renders the blending apparatus of claim 11 unpatentable as explained above. However the combination does not disclose a pliable periphery sized and shaped to form a sound seal with the tamper.
In the same field of household appliance blenders, Jacobsen teaches it was known before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a gasket between the stirring rod and the opening in the lid of the blender jar to seal the open space therebetween. See Figs. 1 and 2 and its written description at column 3, line 25 through column 4 line 22.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a gasket in Martin’s central opening 41 to seal the open space between Martin’s lid 4 and the Shoulder and baffle 51 of stir rod 5 in the same way Jacobsen teaches using collar 40 as a gasket to seal the open space between cap 30 and stir rod 10. A person of ordinary skill would have recognized applying the teaching of Jacobsen to Martin’s lid would achieve the predictable result of providing improved sealing between Martin’s lid 4 and rod 5. The gasket incorporated in Martin’s central opening 41 is a pliable periphery sized and shaped to form a sound seal with stirring rod 5.
Claims 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2012/0294108 A1 by Dickson et al., hereinafter “Dickson”.
Regarding claim 16, Kim discloses a blending apparatus (apparatus shown in Fig. 4; ¶[0016]), comprising:
a blender jar defining a blending cavity (blender jar container 30 in Fig. 4 defining cavity accommodating space 32; ¶[0035]);
a lid positionable over the blender jar to at least partially enclose the blending cavity, the lid defining an opening into the blending cavity (lid 40 in Fig. 4 which defines opening exhaust holes 44; ¶[0041]);
a sound enclosure encompassing the blender jar and the lid (enclosure 20 in Fig. 1 surrounds container 30 and lid 40 as shown in Fig. 2; ¶[0032]), the sound enclosure defining an access hole corresponding to the opening in the lid (upper enclosure 21 in Fig. 4 is shown with an access hole); and
a removable cap positionable over the access hole sealingly engaged with a top surface of the sound enclosure (foreign-material trap 10 in Fig. 1 acts as a removable cap sealingly engaged in the access hole in upper enclosure 21).
Kim does not disclose from claim 16:
a rotatable lid comprising an agitator disposed inside the blending cavity; and
a coupler comprising a first end and a second end opposite the first end, the first end being engaged with the rotatable lid and the second end being engaged with the lower portion of the manual twist cap.
In the same field of household kitchen appliance blenders, Dickson teaches a blending jar with scraper apparatus (title). Blender apparatus 10 in Fig. 1 includes blending jar 16 and scraper lid 20 which may be manually rotated as illustrated by the double-headed arrow bearing “CW” for clockwise and “CCW” for counter-clockwise. See paragraph [0051].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Dickson’s blending jar into Kim’s blending apparatus by replacing Kim’s lid 40 with Dickson’s rotatable scraper lid 20 such that lid handle 56 (Fig. 3) functions as the claimed coupler and cap 157 in Fig. 11 replaces Kim’s removable cap. A person of ordinary skill would have recognized applying the teaching of Dickson to the apparatus of Kim would achieve the predictable result of Kim’s apparatus provided with a rotatable agitator as Dickson teaches.
Regarding claim 17, the prior art reference combination of Kim in view of Dickson renders the blending apparatus according to claim 16 unpatentable as explained above. Kim further discloses wherein the sound enclosure comprises a backing (lower enclosure portion 22 in Figs. 1 and 2 encloses the back portion of jar 30) and clam-shell cover that together define an internal volume within the sound enclosure, the clam-shell cover configured to open and close relative to the backing (upper enclosure portion 21 in Figs. 1 and 2 is “clam-shell” shaped and is connected to lower enclosure portion 22 to open and close relative thereto).
Regarding claim 18, the prior art reference combination of Kim in view of Dickson renders the blending apparatus according to claim 16 unpatentable as explained above. Dickson further teaches rotatable lid 20 is rotated to agitate blending contents within the blending cavity. See the abstract. Cap 157 in Fig. 11 of Dickson is capable of being manually twisted to manipulate lid 20 when cap 157 is engaged in lid handle 56.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 19 and 20 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. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 19, claim 16 has been rejected by interpreting handle 56 of Dickson’s lid 20 as the claimed coupler as explained above. Since handle 56 of Dickson is molded into lid 20, toothed engagement of the bottom end of handle 56 with the rest of lid 20 would not be considered. Thus requiring first and second toothed engagements for the coupler distinguishes claim 19 over the prior art reference combination cited above.
Claim 20 depends from and further limits claim 19.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
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.
/P.D.P./Examiner, Art Unit 3725
/Christopher L Templeton/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3725
Prosecution Insights