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
The election of group I with traversal to correct the claim numbers is acknowledged in the Response to Restriction/Election mailed 12/18/2025. Group I will be examined. Claims 1-12 are considered group I, claims 13-18 are considered group II, and claims 19-20 are considered group III.
Claim Objections
Claim 7 is objected to. While it is understood that claim 7 requires the concave stator feature, the claim depends on claim 2 which recites a concave shape as an alternative option. It is suggested that the claim be amended to “wherein the stator feature is a [[[the]]] concave stator feature” in order to enhance the clarity of the claim.
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, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Dickson (U.S. Publication 2017/0208998).
Regarding claim 1, Dickson teaches a mixing bottle for mixing a plant-based milk (shown as figure 1, the materials being worked upon are considered intended use), the mixing bottle comprising: a bottle body configured to contain the plant-based milk (item 106, the plant based milk is considered intended use); a bottle adapter (items 116 and 118) configured to connect an emulsifier unit to the bottle body (the emulsifier unit is considered items 102, 104 and 120); and the emulsifier unit connected to the bottle adapter (item 120 connects to the inner surface of item 116), wherein the emulsifier unit comprises: an emulsifier adapter to connect the emulsifier unit to the bottle adapter (item 112); a rotor with a plurality of mixing blades configured to mix the plant-based milk (items 170 shown in figure 4); and a stator with a stator feature (item 156 is considered reading on a stator feature, the shape being a stator feature).
Regarding claim 2, Dickson teaches wherein the plurality of mixing blades and the stator shape are concave, convex or flat in shape (items 1780 are flat in shape, item 156 has a concave, convex, and flat portions).
Regarding claim 3, Dickson teaches wherein the stator feature comprises a plurality of parallel cutouts, a plurality of angled cutouts, or a plurality of parallel side cutouts (item 156 has wall portions 166 that are angled cutouts).
Regarding claim 4, Dickson teaches wherein the bottle adapter comprises a friction fit adapter (items 120 and 116 are sized to contact each other, and therefore item 116 inner surface is considered reading on a friction fit adapter).
Regarding claim 6, Dickson teaches wherein the bottle adapter comprises a threaded adapter (paragraph 85 teaches the cup being threaded to external threads).
Regarding claim 7, Dickson teaches wherein the concave stator feature comprises a post at a center point of the concave stator feature (figure 4, item 166 is considered reading on a post and has both a convex and concave shape both on the outside wall and inner wall of item 156, items 166 are considered at the center of shape of item 156).
Regarding claim 8, Dickson teaches the emulsifier adapter is connected to the bottle adapter by a threaded connection (paragraph 85 teaches external threads).
Regarding claim 10, Dickson teaches wherein the bottle adapter is permanently connected to the bottle body (items 116 and 118 are formed as one piece with item 106).
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 5, 9, 11, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dickson (U.S. Publication 2017/0208998).
Regarding claim 5, Dickson is silent to the snap fit shape. Regarding claim 5, absent any unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to substitute the thread shape of Dickson with a snap fit shape in order to allow for easier attachment of the bottle 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 9, Dickson is silent to the permanent attachment configuration. Regarding claim 9, absent any unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to make the bottle and base integral in order to allow for more secure mixing operation since it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U.S. 164 (1893).
Regarding claim 11, Dickson is silent to the size of the 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 fling date to modify the dimensions of the mixer in order to obtain the desired degree of mixing 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 12, Dickson teaches the slots (space between items 166 are considered reading on slots). Regarding claim 12, Dickson is silent to the size of the apparatus. Regarding claim 12, absent any unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective fling date to modify the dimensions of the mixer in order to obtain the desired degree of mixing 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).
Conclusion
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