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
Applicant's election with traverse of Group 1 (Claims 1-10) in the reply filed on 6/19/2026 is acknowledged.
The traversal is on the ground(s) that “First, the Examiner's proposed reasoning for restriction does not demonstrate that the product can be practiced by another materially different process”. This is not found persuasive because the inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because: Inventions II and I are related as process and apparatus for its practice. The inventions are distinct if it can be shown that either: (1) the process as claimed can be practiced by another and materially different apparatus or by hand, or (2) the apparatus as claimed can be used to practice another and materially different process. (MPEP § 806.05(e)). Either (1) or (2) is required, but not both. In this case, because the Examiner demonstrated (1) the process as claimed can be practiced by another and materially different apparatus or by hand, the groups I and II are independent or distinct.
Then, Applicant’s argument: “Second, no serious burden exists in examining the claims of Groups I and II in a single application. Any searching and examining of Group I will encounter subject matter of Group II regardless of whether the search is for a food processing device or a method of using a food processing device”. This is not found persuasive because the independent claim 11 (Group II) recites at least the limitations “operating the food processing device to permit the first accessory to perform a first food processing function within the first detachable vessel; removing the first accessory from the first drive shaft in the first detachable vessel; attaching a second accessory to the first drive shaft in the first detachable vessel; and operating the food processing device to permit the second accessory to perform a second food processing function within the first detachable vessel”, which are not required in claim 1 (Group 1). Claim 11 (Group II) directs to first and second accessories, wherein “the second accessory to perform a second food processing function within the first detachable vessel”, is completely different from the limitations of claim 1 (Group I). Therefore, Groups I and II are NOT related that results from a search of one of the groups will NOT necessarily produce results applicable for examination of the other group, regardless of whether the search is for a food processing device or a method of using a food processing device. For at least the above reasons, Examiner submits that a serious search burden exists for searching and examining Groups I and II.
Furthermore, Applicant’s argument: “no serious burden exists in examining the claims of Group I and III in a single application. Any searching and examining of Group I will encounter subject matter of Group III regardless of whether the search is for a food processing device or a food processing system including the food processing device.” This is not found persuasive because the independent claim 20 (Group III) recites at least the limitations “a second vessel arranged to releasably couple to the motorized base, the second vessel comprising a second accessory configured to rotate within the second vessel, wherein the first vessel and the second vessel each comprise a vessel coupling shaped to engage the base coupling such that rotation of the base coupling drives rotation of the vessel coupling about the rotational axis, and rotation of the first accessory and the second accessory is driven by the vessel coupling; a detection interface arranged to detect when one of the first vessel and the second vessel is coupled to the motorized base and output a detection signal; and a controller in electrical communication with the detection interface, the controller arranged to:i) receive the detection signal from the detection interface and, based on the detection signal, identify the type of vessel associated with one of the first and second vessels; and ii) adjust, based on the detection signal, at least one of a rotational speed of the base coupling and a time period of rotation for the base coupling” are not recited in claim 1 (Group I). In addition, claim 1 recites the limitation “ an accessory arranged to detachably couple to the drive shaft and rotate within the vessel about the rotational axis, wherein rotation of the accessory is driven by the vessel coupling via the drive shaft” which is not recited in claim 20 (Group III). In claim 20, there is not limitation require “drive shaft”, the “accessory arranged to detachably couple to the drive shaft” or “rotation of the accessory is driven by the vessel coupling via the drive shaft” as recited in claim 1. Therefore, Groups I and III are NOT related that results from a search of one of the groups will NOT necessarily produce results applicable for examination of the other group, regardless of whether the search is for a food processing device or a method of using a food processing device. For at least the above reasons, Examiner submits that a serious search burden exists for searching and examining Groups I and III.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
As such, claims 1-10 are examined in this office action.
Claims 11-20 are withdrawn from consideration.
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.
Claim(s)1-2 and 4-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Wulf (US 20070201306 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Wulf discloses
A food processing device (30, see fig.1-2) comprising:
a motorized base (32, see fig.1-2 and para.101: “a motor 234.sub.1 that may be used with the blender base 32”) comprising a base coupling (56, see fig. 1-2) configured to rotate about a rotational axis (see rotational axis in annotated fig.2 below and See para.0012-0013);
PNG
media_image1.png
630
654
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated fig.2 below
a vessel (combo 34 and 110, see fig.2) arranged to releasably couple to the motorized base (32, see fig.2), the vessel (combo 34 and 110, see fig.2) comprising a vessel coupling (180, see fig.15) shaped to engage the base coupling (56) such that rotation of the base coupling (56) drives rotation of the vessel coupling (180, see fig.8) about the rotational axis (see fig.2 and para.0084: “the bottom side of the blade base 110 includes a female connector 180 that is designed to fit on the male drive element 56. The female connector 180 is preferably formed of metal, so the male drive element 56 and the female connector may utilize a metal-to-metal connection as described above. The female connector 180 is rotatably mounted in the blade base 110 and is fixed to rotate with the shaft 150 (FIG. 8)”);
the vessel coupling (180) including a drive shaft (150) extending into a cavity defined by the vessel (cavity of 34, see fig.6-8 and 0070) ; and
an accessory (112, see fig.2) arranged to detachably couple to the drive shaft (150, see fig.2,8 and para.0079: “The blade unit 112 may be … removably attached to the blade base 110”) and rotate within the vessel about the rotational axis (See fig.2,6 and 8), wherein rotation of the accessory (112, see fig.2) is driven by the vessel coupling (180) via the drive shaft (150, See para.0084 and fig.8).
Regarding claim 2, Wulf further discloses the rotational axis is vertical or approximately vertical (see fig.2).
Regarding claim 4, Wulf further discloses
the accessory (112, see fig.2) is at least partially mechanically mounted to the drive shaft ((150).
Regarding claim 5, Wulf further discloses
the accessory includes one or more of: a mixing paddle, a blade, a beater, a chopper, a frother, a grinder, and a whisk (See blade unit 112, fig.2).
Regarding claim 6, Wulf further discloses
the motorized base (32) further comprises an accessory detection interface (combo 66,67) arranged to detect the vessel and output a detection signal (see para.0106: “the first and second sensor switches 66, 67 are connected or interfaced to the microcontroller 224. The sensor switches 66, 67 are configured to detect the presence of a container on the blender base 32, and to determine which type of container is placed on the blender base. To this end, the microcontroller 224 can determine the presence of a container and/or the type of container by the combination of switches 66, 67 that have been actuated (e.g., by the switch actuators 80”).
Regarding claim 7, Wulf further discloses
the motorized base (32) includes a controller (224, fig.21) see in electrical communication with the accessory detection interface (combo 66,67), the controller (224, fig.21) arranged to:
i) receive the detection signal from the detection interface (combo 66,67) and, based on the detection signal, identify the type of vessel (see para.0106: “To this end, the microcontroller 224 can determine the presence of a container and/or the type of container by the combination of switches 66, 67 that have been actuated”); and ii) adjust, based on the detection signal, at least one of a rotational speed of the base coupling and a time period of rotation for the base coupling (See fig.38 and para.0145-0148: “a separate type of container may be utilized with the blender base 32, and routines and/or a particular speed range may be available for that type of container”).
Regarding claim 8, Wulf further discloses
the motorized base (32) further comprises one or more bayonet features (56) arranged to releasably secure the vessel (34) to the motorized base (32, see fig. 2, 15 and para. 0056, 0089).
Regarding claim 9, Wulf further discloses
the vessel (34) has at least one sidewall (sidewall of 34, see fig.15) extending upwardly from the vessel coupling (180, see fig.15) to define a vessel cavity (See fig.15) into which solid and/or liquid ingredients may be processed within the vessel by the accessory (See para.0126: “the microcontroller 224 may be preprogrammed to implement the motor commands for making powdered drinks only if a regular blender or single serving container (e.g., via the agitator collar 190) is placed on the blender base 32”).
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 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wulf in view of Vitor WO2020079660A1
Regarding claim 3, Wulf discloses the claimed limitations as set forth.
Wulf does not expressly disclose the accessory is at least partially magnetically mounted to the drive shaft.
Vitor discloses Device for stirring or mixing a drink in a drinking cup, comprising:
the accessory (10, see fig.20) is at least partially magnetically mounted to the drive shaft (combo 12-13, see fig.20, page 10, line 30 to page 11, line 3: “A rotor 13 is rotatably mounted around the shaft 12 and is provided to magnetically co-operate with said stirring element in such a way that when the rotor 13 is driven around its shaft 12, the stirring element 10 is magnetically driven to rotate by the rotor 13”).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the accessory of Wulf to be at least partially magnetically mounted to the drive shaft as taught by Vitor in order to provide a low wear, low maintenance, non-mechanical coupling between motor and drive element, and in particular, one which avoids the high maintenance costs associated with the mechanical coupling.
Claim 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wulf in view of Kolar US 20180020875 A1
Regarding claim 10, Wulf further discloses the motorized base comprises a motor (234, see fig.21) arranged to drive rotation of the base coupling (56) about the rotational axis (See para.0012: “The motor is preferably operable to rotate the blade unit in forward and reverse directions, and to oscillate the blade unit as desired”).
Wulf does not expressly disclose the motor is powered by a battery and/or a direct current (DC) power source.
Kolar discloses a blending system, comprising:
the motor is powered by a battery and/or a direct current (DC) power source ( see para.0092: “Blender system 500 may provide selective power from a power source, such as…a battery power source, to the switch 516 that may permit operation of a motor”).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the motor of Wulf to be powered by a battery and/or a direct current (DC) power source as taught by Kolar. allows the blender to operate anywhere, such as: at home, in the office, on camping trips, or at the gym, without needing a power outlet.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 6338569 B1 discloses A food blending apparatus and a method of blending food within a container (30) with the object of providing a hygienic system whereby disposable containers are charged with product at a location remote from consumption.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIFFANY T TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3673. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday, 10am - 6pm.
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, Edward Landrum can be reached on (571) 272-5567. 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 or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TIFFANY T TRAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights