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 Objections
Claims 18 and 20 are objected to for being unclear with regard to the language relating to the vertices. While this does not rise to the level of being indefinite, the Examiner suggests that the claims be amended to recite “wherein the protrusion has a triangular shape with three vertices, with one vertex of the three vertices of the triangular shape being aligned with the at least one of the three vertices of the polygonal surface” (emphasis added to highlight changes). This would ensure clarity with regard to the two sets of vertices mentioned in the claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-5, 9-12 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fouquet et al. (US PGPub 2013/0215707, hereinafter Fouquet) in view of Wu (US 8403556, hereinafter Wu).
Regarding claim 1, Fouquet discloses a blender jar for operable connection to a blender for comminuting foodstuffs comprising:
a base (figure 2, bottom wall 10) configured to be mounted to a blender (paragraph 0001), the base comprising a rotatable blade (knife 16) mounted thereto for operable interconnection to a blender (via mechanism 14), the rotatable blade defining a blade radius and a blade path, the blade path determined by a vertical gap between upper and lower portions of the rotatable blade (see figure 2);
a wall (side wall 12) extending upwardly from the base having an interior surface defining an internal blending chamber with an interior surface of the base, the wall having a terminal edge (at upper end 12A) for receipt of a lid (lid 3) for containing foodstuffs within the blending chamber; and
at least one protrusion (figure 6, baffle elements 20, 22 and 24) integrally formed with at least one of the interior surface of the base and the interior surface of the wall (see figure 4), the protrusion extending into the internal blending chamber without extending to the blade radius of the rotatable blade (see figure 6), the protrusion having at least one surface that extends from a lower portion adjacent the base and an upper portion above the blade path of the rotatable blade (see figure 2).
Fouquet does not explicitly disclose a blade with upper and lower tips to form a blade path. Wu teaches a blender jar having a blade including upper and lower tips forming a vertical gap therebetween (see figure 2, blade unlabeled). To one of ordinary sill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to have substituted the blades of Wu for that of Fouquet because such a simple substitution of one known blade for another would have provided only the predictable result of allowing for the mixing of material within the blender, as evidenced by the references. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Fouquet further discloses the interior surface of the wall defines a polygonal surface having at least three vertices (see figure 6).
Finally, Fouquet discloses protrusions disposed adjacent the vertices (see figure 6), but not explicitly within them. Wu teaches a blender jar having protrusions (figures 1 and 3) that are disposed within vertices of the blender jar (see annotated figure 1 below, also clearly seen in figure 3). To one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to have provided the protrusions of Fouquet within the vertices, as in Wu, because both designs are known in the art and such a modification would provide only the expected result of altering flow of material being mixed within the jar.
PNG
media_image1.png
542
590
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, Fouquet discloses a plurality of protrusions (figure 6, baffles 20, 22, and 24) disposed with a vertex between adjacent protrusions (see figure 6). Fouquet does not explicitly disclose protrusions within vertices. Wu is relied upon, as above, to teach protrusions within vertices. To one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to have provided the protrusions of Fouquet within the vertices, as in Wu, because both designs are known in the art and such a modification would provide only the expected result of altering flow of material being mixed within the jar. Further, it is noted that, with five vertices in Fouquet, at least two of the protrusions would have a vertex therebetween if places in the vertices of the jar.
Regarding claim 5, Fouquet discloses three protrusions (figure 6, baffles 20, 22, and 24) disposed with a vertex between adjacent protrusions (see figure 6). Fouquet does not explicitly disclose protrusions within vertices. Wu is relied upon, as above, to teach protrusions within vertices. To one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to have provided the protrusions of Fouquet within the vertices, as in Wu, because both designs are known in the art and such a modification would provide only the expected result of altering flow of material being mixed within the jar. Further, it is noted that, with five vertices in Fouquet and three protrusions, two of the protrusions would have to be within adjacent vertices.
Regarding claim 9, Fouquet discloses the at least one protrusion (figure 3, baffles 20 and 22) comprises a generally planar surface (see figures 3-6) having a perimeter integrally formed with a portion of the base and a portion of the wall above the blade path (see figure 2).
Regarding claim 10, Fouquet discloses the at least one protrusion comprises a first generally planar surface having a perimeter integrally formed with a portion of the base and a portion of the wall above the blade path and a second generally planar surface having a perimeter integrally formed with a portion of the base and a portion of the wall above the blade path (figure 6, baffles 20, 22, and 24), but it silent to the first generally planar surface intersecting the second generally planar surface along a midline of the at least one protrusion. Wu teaches protrusions having generally planar surfaces with the first generally planar surface intersecting the second generally planar surface along a midline of the at least one protrusion (see figure 3). To one of ordinary skill it the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to have provided the protrusions of Fouquet with the shape of those in Wu because such a change in shape would have provided only the predictable result of altering the flow of material being mixed in the jar, as evidenced by the references. See In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Regarding claim 11, Fouquet is silent to the generally planar surface as recited. Wu teaches protrusions having generally planar surfaces with an upper portion comprising a generally planar surface that has an edge formed with an upper edge of the first generally planar surface and an upper edge of the second generally planar surface (see figure 3). To one of ordinary skill it the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to have provided the protrusions of Fouquet with the shape of those in Wu because such a change in shape would have provided only the predictable result of altering the flow of material being mixed in the jar, as evidenced by the references. See In re Dailey, supra.
Regarding claim 17, Fouquet discloses the upper portion of the at least one protrusion comprises a third generally planar surface and a fourth generally planar surface that are disposed angularly with respect to one another (surfaces can be seen in figure 4, on baffle 22).
Regarding claim 22, Fouquet discloses one or more ribs (figure 5, ribs can be seen on either side of baffle 20) extending from the wall and being spaced from the protrusion.
Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fouquet et al. (US PGPub 2013/0215707, hereinafter Fouquet) in view of Wu (US 8403556, hereinafter Wu), as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Dickson, Jr. et al. (US 9420915, hereinafter Dickson).
Regarding claim 6, Fouquet is silent to a generally rectangular cross section as recited. Dickson teaches a blender jar wherein a wall defines a generally rectangular cross section having four vertices (see figure 1C). The obviousness of placing protrusions in vertices is established above in view of Wu. Further, with the three protrusions of Fouquet placed in vertices of a rectangular cross section, at least two of the vertices would be in opposite vertices. To one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to have provided the jar of Fouquet with the cross-sectional shape of Dickson because the change in shape would have provided only the expected result of allowing the jar to contain ingredients for mixing, as evidenced by the references. See In re Dailey, supra.
Regarding claim 7, Fouquet is silent to a generally rectangular cross section as recited. Dickson teaches a blender jar wherein a wall defines a generally rectangular cross section having four vertices (see figure 1C). The obviousness of placing protrusions in vertices is established above in view of Wu. Further, with the three protrusions of Fouquet placed in vertices of a rectangular cross section, at least two of the vertices would be in adjacent vertices. To one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to have provided the jar of Fouquet with the cross-sectional shape of Dickson because the change in shape would have provided only the expected result of allowing the jar to contain ingredients for mixing, as evidenced by the references. See In re Dailey, supra.
Regarding claim 8, Fouquet is silent to a generally rectangular cross section as recited. Dickson teaches a blender jar wherein a wall defines a generally rectangular cross section having four vertices (see figure 1C). The obviousness of placing protrusions in vertices is established above in view of Wu. Further, with the three protrusions of Fouquet placed in vertices of a rectangular cross section, all of the vertices would be filled but one, meeting the claim. To one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to have provided the jar of Fouquet with the cross-sectional shape of Dickson because the change in shape would have provided only the expected result of allowing the jar to contain ingredients for mixing, as evidenced by the references. See In re Dailey, supra.
Claims 13-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fouquet et al. (US PGPub 2013/0215707, hereinafter Fouquet) in view of Wu (US 8403556, hereinafter Wu) and Conti (US PGPub 2013/0033959, hereinafter Conti).
Regarding claim 13, Fouquet discloses a blender for comminuting foodstuffs comprising:
a housing comprising a motor (paragraph 0002, “a motor-driven driving base”), a seat defined on an upper portion of the housing, the seat comprising a bearing having a keyed portion configured to be rotatably driven by the motor;
a blender jar comprising a base (figure 2, bottom wall 10) configured to be mounted to the seat (paragraph 0001), the base comprising a rotatable blade (knife 16) mounted thereto for operable interconnection to a blender (via mechanism 14), the rotatable blade defining a blade radius and a blade path, the blade path determined by a vertical gap between upper and lower portions of the rotatable blade (see figure 2);
a wall (side wall 12) extending upwardly from the base having an interior surface defining an internal blending chamber with an interior surface of the base, the wall having a terminal edge (at upper end 12A) for receipt of a lid (lid 3) for containing foodstuffs within the blending chamber; and
at least one protrusion (figure 6, baffle elements 20, 22 and 24) integrally formed with at least one of the interior surface of the base and the interior surface of the wall (see figure 4), the protrusion extending into the internal blending chamber without extending to the blade radius of the rotatable blade (see figure 6), the protrusion having at least one surface that extends from a lower portion adjacent the base and an upper portion above the blade path of the rotatable blade (see figure 2).
Fouquet further discloses the interior surface of the wall defines a polygonal surface having at least three vertices (see figure 6).
Finally, Fouquet discloses protrusions disposed adjacent the vertices (see figure 6), but not explicitly within them. Wu teaches a blender jar having protrusions (figures 1 and 3) that are disposed within vertices of the blender jar (see annotated figure 1 below, also clearly seen in figure 3). To one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to have provided the protrusions of Fouquet within the vertices, as in Wu, because both designs are known in the art and such a modification would provide only the expected result of altering flow of material being mixed within the jar.
Fouquet does not explicitly disclose a blade with upper and lower tips to form a blade path. Wu teaches a blender jar having a blade including upper and lower tips forming a vertical gap therebetween (see figure 2, blade unlabeled). To one of ordinary sill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to have substituted the blades of Wu for that of Fouquet because such a simple substitution of one known blade for another would have provided only the predictable result of allowing for the mixing of material within the blender, as evidenced by the references. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Fouquet does not explicitly disclose a controller operably connected to the motor for operating the motor through a plurality of blending modes, although it is noted that this is a well-known feature of blenders. Further, Conti teaches a blender having a controller operably connected to the motor for operating the motor through a plurality of blending modes (paragraphs 0017 and 0022). To one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to have provided the device of Fouquet with the controller of Conti for the purpose of allowing a user to control the operation of the blender to achieve a desired mixing result.
Regarding claim 14, Fouquet discloses the at least one protrusion (figure 3, baffles 20 and 22) comprises a generally planar surface (see figures 3-6) having a perimeter integrally formed with a portion of the base and a portion of the wall above the blade path (see figure 2).
Regarding claim 15, Fouquet discloses the at least one protrusion comprises a first generally planar surface having a perimeter integrally formed with a portion of the base and a portion of the wall above the blade path and a second generally planar surface having a perimeter integrally formed with a portion of the base and a portion of the wall above the blade path (figure 6, baffles 20, 22, and 24), but it silent to the first generally planar surface intersecting the second generally planar surface along a midline of the at least one protrusion. Wu teaches protrusions having generally planar surfaces with the first generally planar surface intersecting the second generally planar surface along a midline of the at least one protrusion (see figure 3). To one of ordinary skill it the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to have provided the protrusions of Fouquet with the shape of those in Wu because such a change in shape would have provided only the predictable result of altering the flow of material being mixed in the jar, as evidenced by the references. See In re Dailey, supra.
Regarding claim 16, Fouquet is silent to the generally planar surface as recited. Wu teaches protrusions having generally planar surfaces with an upper portion comprising a generally planar surface that has an edge formed with an upper edge of the first generally planar surface and an upper edge of the second generally planar surface (see figure 3). To one of ordinary skill it the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to have provided the protrusions of Fouquet with the shape of those in Wu because such a change in shape would have provided only the predictable result of altering the flow of material being mixed in the jar, as evidenced by the references. See In re Dailey, supra.
Regarding claim 17, Fouquet discloses the upper portion of the at least one protrusion comprises a third generally planar surface and a fourth generally planar surface that are disposed angularly with respect to one another (surfaces can be seen in figure 4, on baffle 22).
Claims 19 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fouquet et al. (US PGPub 2013/0215707, hereinafter Fouquet) in view of Wu (US 8403556, hereinafter Wu) and Conti (US PGPub 2013/0033959, hereinafter Conti), or, in the case of claim 20, Fouquet et al. (US PGPub 2013/0215707, hereinafter Fouquet) in view of Wu (US 8403556, hereinafter Wu), as applied to claims 18 and 20 above, and further in view of Garman et al. (US 8109668, hereinafter Garman, previously cited but not relied upon by the Examiner).
Regarding claims 19 and 21, Fouquet is silent to the protrusions having a curved outer surface as recited. Garman teaches a blender jar and blender having protrusions (figure 3, ribs 32a and 32b) with a curved outer surface that extends into an interior of the blender jar (see figure 3). To one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to have provided the protrusions of Fouquet with the curved surface of Garman because such a change in shape would have provided only the expected result of altering flow of materials within the blender, as evidenced by the references.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 18 and 20 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and to overcome the objections above.
Claims 18 and 20 recite specific placement and structure of the protrusions that is not reasonably disclosed, taught, or suggested in the prior art of record.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that the Examiner has relied on an interpretation of the figures of Wu rather than express description from Wu (remarks, page 8). Even if this is true, it is well-settled that drawings can be used as prior art and are useful for all that they show or would suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art and that it does not matter if the feature shown in the drawings is unintended or unexplained in the Specification. See MPEP 2125. In this case, the portion of the blender jar of Wu clearly shows an alteration in wall geometry that could be considered a vertex, and thus this argument is not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that the Examiner’s assertion relies on impermissible hindsight (remarks, pages 8 and 10). The Examiner respectfully disagrees. It must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). In this case, the Applicant has not pointed out any specific knowledge used in the rejection that could only be gleaned from the Applicant’s disclosure. The prior art makes clear that blender jars can exist in a variety of shapes, that baffles are known additions to blender jars, and that the positions of said baffles can be with vertices of the blender jar. It is noted that, similar to Wu, the Dickson reference also teaches additional structure within a vertex of the jar (see figure 1C). The Examiner sees no reason why any of this information could only come from the Applicant’s disclosure, and thus this argument is not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that the alteration of the geometry of Fouquet or Wu would constitute a fundamental redesign and not a routine or predictable modification (remarks, page 9). The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As noted above, the prior art makes clear that blender jars can exist in a variety of shapes, that baffles are known additions to blender jars, and that the positions of said baffles can be with vertices of the blender jar. The Examiner sees no reason why providing a blender jar with a known shape or adjusting the positions of baffles within the blender jar would provide any result beyond the predictable alteration of flow within the jar during use, and thus this argument is not persuasive.
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 MARC C HOWELL whose telephone number is (571)272-9834. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-5.
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.
/MARC C HOWELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1774
Prosecution Insights