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 § 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 1-20 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.
Regarding claims 1 and 12, each of these claims recite “the first open end of the processing chamber comprises at least one abrupt transition cross-sectional contour” which renders these claims indefinite because it is not clear what is required for a transition to be “abrupt,” i.e., an instant transition or a transition that happens over a length of the surface, e.g., over 5% of the length. For the purpose of examination, this phrase will be interpreted as the first open end of the processing chamber comprises at least one transition cross-sectional contour that happens over a length less than 25% of the total length. Claims 2-11 and 13-20 each depend from one of claims 1 or 12 and fail to clarify the indefinite language.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2,284,155 to Landgraf in view of US 8,721,164 B2 to Audette.
Regarding claim 1, Landgraf teaches a food processing system (Fig. 1) comprising:
a food processing base 11 (Fig. 1; P. 1, Left Column, Lns. 9-32); and
an attachment 10 connectable to said food processing base (Fig. 1; P. 1, Left Column, Lns. 9-32), said attachment including (i) a container comprising a processing chamber (Figs. 1 and 6-7) and (ii) at least one processing tool 27 receivable within the processing chamber of said container (Figs. 1 and 6-7; P. 2, Left Column, Lns. 36-40), wherein the processing chamber comprises a first cross-sectional shape at a first open end of the processing chamber and a second cross-sectional shape at a second closed end of the processing chamber (Figs. 1 and 3 show the cross-section of the first end has a first shape and the cross-section of the second closed end has a second shape), a cross-section of the processing chamber gradually transitioning in cross-sectional contour over an entire height of the processing chamber extending from the first open end to the second closed end (Figs. 1 and 3-5; P. 1, Right Column, Lns. 32-50; the processing chamber has various shapes through the height at sections 12, 14 and 16 with the contour of the walls defining the cross-section also changing over the height as well, as shown in Fig. 7 with the tapering shape of the walls), the second cross-sectional shape being circular (Figs. 1 and 3-5; P. 1, Right Column, Lns. 32-50; the cross-section of the bottom, i.e., section 12, is circular), and
wherein the food processing system is operable in both a food processing mode and a blending mode, said attachment being connectable to said food processing base during both said food processing mode and said blending mode (P. 3, Left Column, Lns. 51-58; the processing system is capable of processing individual foods, i.e., processing the food into a different form such as liquid or smaller pieces of pulp, and blending components together, such as a food with water, with the attachment secured to the base for both operations), and
wherein gradually transitioning in cross-sectional contour comprises changes in a cross-sectional profile in frequent increments over the entire height (Figs. 1 and 3-5; P. 1, Right Column, Lns. 32-50; the processing chamber has various shapes through the height at sections 12, 14 and 16 with the contour of the walls changing in frequent increments, i.e., the changes in shape happen often, as shown in Figs. 1, 5, and 7 with the section 12 changing in shape throughout its height and then the baffle 16 changing the shape of the cross section of the chamber above the section 12, and then the top having a shape without the baffles).
Landgraf fails to explicitly teach the first cross-sectional shape being one of square, rectangular, rectellipse, and squircle in shape, and wherein a center plane containing a centrally located axis of the container extends through a center of two opposite sides of the first cross-sectional shape and a portion of the processing chamber adjacent the first open end is asymmetric across the center plane, and wherein the first open end of the processing chamber comprises at least one abrupt transition cross-sectional contour.
Audette teaches a food processing system including an attachment 20 on a food processing base 60 (Figs. 1 and 8), and the attachment includes a container 20 having a processing chamber and at least one processing tool 400, 412, 420, 430 (Figs. 1, 6 and 17) wherein the processing chamber has a first cross-sectional shape at a first open end of the processing chamber and a second cross-sectional shape at a second closed end of the processing chamber with the first cross-sectional shape being one of square, rectangular, rectellipse, and squircle in shape (Figs. 1-5 and 17 show the first cross-sectional shape is a squircle), and wherein a center plane containing a centrally located axis of the container extends through a center of two opposite sides of the first cross-sectional shape and a portion of the processing chamber adjacent the first open end is asymmetric across the center plane (Fig. 6 shows that the a portion of the processing chamber adjacent the first open end is asymmetric because one side is angled inwardly while the other side is angled outwardly where the contents of the container would be poured out, as shown in Figs. 1-4 where the portion that would be angled outwardly is at the side opposite to the handle), wherein the first open end of the processing chamber comprises at least one abrupt transition cross-sectional contour (Fig. 6 shows that the cross-sectional contour abruptly changes from the asymmetrical shape and a contour at a first angle to a symmetrical shape at a different contour angle at the portion by the handle).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the processing chamber of Landgraf to have a cross-sectional shape being one of square, rectangular, rectellipse, and squircle in shape and with the cross-section by the first open end being asymmetrical and having an abrupt transition cross-sectional contour as taught by Audette so that the processing chamber and associated cover may have a corner that forms a spout to pour the contents out of the container, thus making it easier to direct the processed contents to a desired location after the processing operation (Audette, Col. 10, Ln. 57 through Col. 11, Ln. 13).
Regarding claim 2, modified Landgraf teaches the food processing system of claim 1 (Fig. 1), wherein during said food processing mode said at least one processing tool is rotatable about an axis at at least 300 rpm (Figs. 1 and 7; P. 3, Left Column, Lns. 6-11; this claim is interpreted as the processing tool is capable of being rotated at a speed of at least 300 rpm, and the tool is capable of rotating at such a speed depending on the motor it is attached to).
Regarding claim 3, modified Landgraf teaches the food processing system of claim 1 (Fig. 1), wherein during said food processing mode said at least one processing tool 27 is rotatable about an axis at at least 500 rpm (Figs. 1 and 7; P. 3, Left Column, Lns. 6-11; this claim is interpreted as the processing tool is capable of being rotated at a speed of at least 500 rpm, and the tool is capable of rotating at such a speed depending on the motor it is attached to).
Regarding claim 4, modified Landgraf teaches the food processing system of claim 1 (Fig. 1), wherein during said food processing mode said at least one processing tool 27 is rotatable about an axis at a speed between 1000 rpm and 1500 rpm (Figs. 1 and 7; P. 3, Left Column, Lns. 6-11; this claim is interpreted as the processing tool is capable of being rotated at a speed between 1000 and 1500 rpm, and the tool is capable of rotating at such a speed depending on the motor it is attached to).
Regarding claim 5, modified Landgraf teaches the food processing system of claim 1 (Fig. 1), wherein during said blending mode said at least one processing tool 27 is rotatable about an axis at at least 1000 rpm (Figs. 1 and 7; P. 3, Left Column, Lns. 6-11; this claim is interpreted as the processing tool is capable of being rotated at a speed of at least 1000 rpm, and the tool is capable of rotating at such a speed depending on the motor it is attached to).
Regarding claim 6, modified Landgraf teaches the food processing system of claim 1 (Fig. 1), wherein during said blending mode said at least one processing tool 27 is rotatable about an axis at at least 3000 rpm (Figs. 1 and 7; P. 3, Left Column, Lns. 6-11; this claim is interpreted as the processing tool is capable of being rotated at a speed of at least 3000 rpm, and the tool is capable of rotating at such a speed depending on the motor it is attached to).
Regarding claim 7, modified Landgraf teaches the food processing system of claim 1 (Fig. 1), wherein during said blending mode said at least one processing tool 27 is rotatable about an axis at a speed between 5000 rpm and 6000 rpm (Figs. 1 and 7; P. 3, Left Column, Lns. 6-11; this claim is interpreted as the processing tool is capable of being rotated at a speed between 5000 and 6000 rpm, and the tool is capable of rotating at such a speed depending on the motor it is attached to).
Regarding claim 8, modified Landgraf teaches the food processing system of claim 1 (Fig. 1).
Landgraf fails to explicitly teach wherein said at least one processing tool includes a first processing tool receivable within said container during said food processing mode and a second processing tool receivable within said container during said blending mode.
Audette teaches a food processing system wherein said at least one processing tool 400, 412, 420, 430 includes a first processing tool 400, 412, 420, 430 receivable within said container during said food processing mode and a second processing tool 400, 412, 420, 430 receivable within said container during said blending mode (Figs. 18-19 and 21-22; Col. 5, Lns. 40-48, Col. 14, Lns. 41-48 and Col. 15, Lns. 14-18; as discussed in Col. 5, Lns. 40-48, the food processor may use the components for blending or processing and therefore the tools may be used in either operation).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the food processing system of Landrgraf to include multiple processing tools receivable within the container for different operations as taught by Audette so that the food processing system may be setup for the optimal configuration for each blending or processing operation.
Regarding claim 9, modified Landgraf teaches the food processing system of claim 8 (Fig. 1), wherein said first processing tool 400 has a stacked 6-blade configuration (Audette, Figs. 18 and 19; modified Landgraf includes the processing tools of Audette, which teaches that the tool 400 includes six blades).
Regarding claim 10, modified Landgraf teaches the food processing system of claim 8 (Fig. 1), wherein said second processing tool 430 has a dough 4-blade configuration (Audette, Fig. 22; Col. 15, Lns. 1-13; modified Landgraf includes the processing tools of Audette, which teaches that tool 430 has four blades 406).
Regarding claim 11, modified Landgraf teaches the food processing system of claim 1 (Fig. 1), wherein said at least one processing tool 27 includes a single food processing tool receivable within said container during both said food processing mode and said blending mode (P. 3, Left Column, Lns. 51-58; the processing system is capable of processing individual foods, i.e., processing the food into a different form such as liquid or smaller pieces of pulp, and blending components together, such as a food with water, with the attachment secured to the base for both operations).
Regarding claim 12, Landgraf teaches a food processing system (Fig. 1) comprising:
a food processing base 11 (Fig. 1; P. 1, Left Column, Lns. 9-32); and
an attachment connectable to said food processing base, said attachment 10 including (i) a container comprising a processing chamber (Figs. 1 and 6-7) and (ii) at least one processing tool 27 receivable within the processing chamber of said container (Figs. 1 and 6-7; P. 2, Left Column, Lns. 36-40), wherein the processing chamber comprises a first cross-sectional shape at a first open end of the processing chamber and a second cross-sectional shape at a second closed end of the processing chamber (Figs. 1 and 3 show the cross-section of the first end has a first shape and the cross-section of the second closed end has a second shape), a cross-section of the processing chamber gradually transitioning in cross-sectional contour over an entire height of the processing chamber (Figs. 1 and 3-5; P. 1, Right Column, Lns. 32-50; the processing chamber has various shapes through the height at sections 12, 14 and 16 with the contour of the walls defining the cross-section also changing over the height as well, as shown in Fig. 7 with the tapering shape of the walls), the second cross-sectional shape being circular (Figs. 1 and 3-5; P. 1, Right Column, Lns. 32-50; the cross-section of the bottom, i.e., section 12, is circular),
wherein said at least one processing tool is rotatable about an axis at a speed between 300 rpm and 20,000 rpm (Figs. 1 and 7; P. 3, Left Column, Lns. 6-11; this claim is interpreted as the processing tool is capable of being rotated at a speed between 300 and 20,000 rpm, and the tool is capable of rotating at such a speed depending on the motor it is attached to), and
wherein gradually transitioning in cross-sectional contour comprises changes in a cross-sectional profile in frequent increments over the entire height (Figs. 1 and 3-5; P. 1, Right Column, Lns. 32-50; the processing chamber has various shapes through the height at sections 12, 14 and 16 with the contour of the walls changing in frequent increments, i.e., the changes in shape happen often, as shown in Figs. 1, 5, and 7 with the section 12 changing in shape throughout its height and then the baffle 16 changing the shape of the cross section of the chamber above the section 12, and then the top having a shape without the baffles).
Landgraf fails to explicitly teach the first cross-sectional shape being one of square, rectangular, rectellipse, and squircle in shape, wherein a center plane containing a centrally located axis of the container extends through a center of two opposite sides of the first cross-sectional shape and a portion of the processing chamber adjacent the first open end is asymmetric across the center plane, and wherein the first open end of the processing chamber comprises at least one abrupt transition cross-sectional contour.
Audette teaches a food processing system including an attachment 20 on a food processing base 60 (Figs. 1 and 8), and the attachment includes a container 20 having a processing chamber and at least one processing tool 400, 412, 420, 430 (Figs. 1, 6 and 17) wherein the processing chamber has a first cross-sectional shape at a first open end of the processing chamber and a second cross-sectional shape at a second closed end of the processing chamber with the first cross-sectional shape being one of square, rectangular, rectellipse, and squircle in shape (Figs. 1-5 and 17 show the first cross-sectional shape is a squircle) and wherein a center plane containing a centrally located axis of the container extends through a center of two opposite sides of the first cross-sectional shape and a portion of the processing chamber adjacent the first open end is asymmetric across the center plane (Fig. 6 shows that the a portion of the processing chamber adjacent the first open end is asymmetric because one side is angled inwardly while the other side is angled outwardly where the contents of the container would be poured out, as shown in Figs. 1-4 where the portion that would be angled outwardly is at the side opposite to the handle), wherein the first open end of the processing chamber comprises at least one abrupt transition cross-sectional contour (Fig. 6 shows that the cross-sectional contour abruptly changes from the asymmetrical shape and a contour at a first angle to a symmetrical shape at a different contour angle at the portion by the handle).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the processing chamber of Landgraf to have a cross-sectional shape being one of square, rectangular, rectellipse, and squircle in shape and with the cross-section by the first open end being asymmetrical with an abrupt transition in cross-sectional contour as taught by Audette so that the processing chamber and associated cover may have a corner that forms a spout to pour the contents out of the container, thus making it easier to direct the processed contents to a desired location after the processing operation (Audette, Col. 10, Ln. 57 through Col. 11, Ln. 13).
Regarding claim 13, modified Landgraf teaches the food processing system of claim 12 (Fig. 1), wherein said at least one processing tool includes a first processing tool 27, said first processing tool being associated with a food processing operation (P. 3, Left Column, Lns. 51-58; the processing tool is capable of processing individual foods, i.e., processing the food into a different form such as liquid or smaller pieces of pulp).
Regarding claim 14, modified Landgraf teaches the food processing system of claim 13 (Fig. 1), wherein said first processing tool 27 is rotatable about said axis at at least 300 rpm (Figs. 1 and 7; P. 3, Left Column, Lns. 6-11; this claim is interpreted as the processing tool is capable of being rotated at a speed of at least 300 rpm, and the tool is capable of rotating at such a speed depending on the motor it is attached to).
Regarding claim 15, modified Landgraf teaches the food processing system of claim 13 (Fig. 1), wherein said first processing tool 27 is rotatable about said axis at at least 500 rpm (Figs. 1 and 7; P. 3, Left Column, Lns. 6-11; this claim is interpreted as the processing tool is capable of being rotated at a speed of at least 500 rpm, and the tool is capable of rotating at such a speed depending on the motor it is attached to).
Regarding claim 16, modified Landgraf teaches the food processing system of claim 13 (Fig. 1), wherein said first processing tool 27 is rotatable about said axis at between 1000 rpm and 1500 rpm (Figs. 1 and 7; P. 3, Left Column, Lns. 6-11; this claim is interpreted as the processing tool is capable of being rotated at a speed of at least 300 rpm, and the tool is capable of rotating at such a speed depending on the motor it is attached to).
Regarding claim 17, modified Landgraf teaches the food processing system of claim 13 (Fig. 1).
Landgraf fails to explicitly teach wherein said at least one processing tool includes a second processing tool 400, 412, 420, 430 interchangeable with same first processing tool, said second processing tool being associated with a blending operation.
Audette teaches a food processing system wherein said at least one processing tool 400, 412, 420, 430 includes a second processing tool interchangeable with same first processing tool, said second processing tool being associated with a blending operation (Figs. 18-19 and 21-22; Col. 5, Lns. 40-48, Col. 14, Lns. 41-48 and Col. 15, Lns. 14-18; as discussed in Col. 5, Lns. 40-48, the food processor may use the components for blending or processing and therefore the tools may be used in either operation).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the food processing system of Landrgraf to include multiple processing tools receivable within the container for different operations as taught by Audette so that the food processing system may be setup for the optimal configuration for each blending or processing operation.
Regarding claim 18, modified Landgraf teaches the food processing system of claim 8 (Fig. 1), wherein said second processing tool is rotatable about said axis at at least 1000 rpm (Figs. 1 and 7; P. 3, Left Column, Lns. 6-11; this claim is interpreted as the processing tool is capable of being rotated at a speed of at least 1000 rpm, and the tool is capable of rotating at such a speed depending on the motor it is attached to).
Regarding claim 19, modified Landgraf teaches the food processing system of claim 17 (Fig. 1), wherein said second processing tool is rotatable about said axis at at least 3000 rpm (Figs. 1 and 7; P. 3, Left Column, Lns. 6-11; this claim is interpreted as the processing tool is capable of being rotated at a speed of at least 3000 rpm, and the tool is capable of rotating at such a speed depending on the motor it is attached to).
Regarding claim 20, modified Landgraf teaches the food processing system of claim 17 (Fig. 1), wherein said first processing tool is rotatable about said axis at between about 5000 rpm and 6000 rpm (Figs. 1 and 7; P. 3, Left Column, Lns. 6-11; this claim is interpreted as the processing tool is capable of being rotated at a speed of at between 5000 and 6000 rpm, and the tool is capable of rotating at such a speed depending on the motor it is attached to).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's amendments and remarks dated October 17, 2025, regarding the rejections under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the combination of Landgraf and Audette fails to explicitly teach at least one abrupt transition in cross-sectional contour as recited in claims 1 and 12. Remarks, PP. 6-9. This argument has been carefully considered and it is not persuasive. Modified Landgraf includes the cross-sectional shape by the first open end of Audette including the asymmetrical shape, as discussed above. Audette teaches that the asymmetrical shape includes the slanted surface that abruptly transitions into the symmetric shape with the wall angled in a different direction at the handle, as shown in Fig. 6 of Audette. Accordingly, modified Landgraf teaches the claimed abrupt change in cross-sectional contour because the asymmetric shape and contour abruptly transition to the symmetric shape at the first end.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW STEPHENS whose telephone number is (571)272-6722. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 930-630.
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, Chris 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.
/MATTHEW STEPHENS/Examiner, Art Unit 3725
/Christopher L Templeton/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3725