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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the shading in figures 20-29 makes the individual structures and parts unclear. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 22 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 5, “blade subassemblies (30, 40)” should read --blade subassemblies--. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-17, 19, 20 and 22-30 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 1 describe a method of using the apparatus in lines 12-15, which renders the claim indefinite. A single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite. See MPEP §2173.05(p)(II). Claims 2-17 are also rejected under 35 USC 112(b) by virtue of their dependency on claim 1.
Claim 5 describe a method of using the apparatus in lines 3-6, which renders the claim indefinite. A single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite. See MPEP §2173.05(p)(II).
Claim 8 describe a method of using the apparatus, which renders the claim indefinite. A single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite. See MPEP §2173.05(p)(II). Claim 9 is also rejected under 35 USC 112(b) by virtue of its dependency on claim 8.
Claim 9 describe a method of using the apparatus in lines 3-10, which renders the claim indefinite. A single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite. See MPEP §2173.05(p)(II).
Claim 19 describe a method of using the apparatus, which renders the claim indefinite. A single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite. See MPEP §2173.05(p)(II).
Claim 20 describe a method of using the apparatus in lines 3-10, which renders the claim indefinite. A single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite. See MPEP §2173.05(p)(II).
Claim 22 describe a method of using the apparatus in lines 11-14, which renders the claim indefinite. A single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite. See MPEP §2173.05(p)(II). Claims 23-30 are also rejected under 35 USC 112(b) by virtue of their dependency on claim 22.
Claim 23 describe a method of using the apparatus in lines 3-6, which renders the claim indefinite. A single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite. See MPEP §2173.05(p)(II).
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.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Heier (U.S. Patent No. 4,195,754).
Regarding claim 1, Heier discloses a blending system (figure 1, reference #10) for blending a frozen mix within a container with a rim, a sidewall, and a bottom (reference #19), the blending system comprising:
a rotatable inner blade subassembly with at least one blade with a blade edge for shaving the frozen mix over an inner shaving zone Zi wherein the inner blade subassembly is adapted to shave the frozen mix in a first rotational direction (figure 3, reference #106 and 116; column 2, lines 42-44);
a rotatable outer blade subassembly with at least one blade with a blade edge for shaving the frozen mix over an outer shaving zone Zo wherein the outer blade subassembly is concentric with the inner blade subassembly and wherein the outer blade subassembly is adapted to shave the frozen mix in a second rotational direction opposite the first rotational direction (figure 3, reference #128 and 138; column 2, lines 56-57; column 3, lines 30-34; column 3, lines 41-42);
wherein the inner blade subassembly and the outer blade subassembly are rotatable about a common rotational axis to form a shaving and blending assembly (figure 3, not labeled, vertical line through reference #28 and 94);
whereby the blending system can shave and blend the frozen mix within the container over the inner and outer shaving zones Zi and Zo by a rotation of the inner blade subassembly in the first rotational direction and a simultaneous rotation of the outer blade subassembly in the second rotational direction (figure 3, reference #28, 94, 106, 116, 130 and 138; column 2, lines 56-57; column 3, lines 30-34; column 3, lines 41-42).
Regarding limitations recited in claim 1 which are directed to a manner of operating disclosed system, namely for shaving and blending a frozen drink/mix, it is noted that neither the manner of operating a disclosed device nor material or article worked upon further limit an apparatus claim. Said limitations do not differentiate apparatus claims from prior art. See MPEP § 2114 and 2115. Further, it has been held that process limitations do not have patentable weight in an apparatus claim. See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969) that states “Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and to an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.” The limitation of a blade for shaving a frozen mix is narrative to effect of operation of blade structure and does not positively point out and claim structural elements of features of blade which imparts intended effect of shaving and/or blending as a further limitation of a patentable structural distinction from a blade element. Heier disclose the limitation of a blade that is consistent with the structural limitations as recited, and the intended use of the blade for shaving a frozen mix does not differentiate the blade structure. Additionally, a preamble is generally not accorded any patentable weight where it merely recites the purpose of a process or the intended use of a structure, and where the body of the claim does not depend on the preamble for completeness but, instead, the process steps or structural limitations are able to stand alone. See In re Hirao, 535 F.2d 67, 190 USPQ 15 (CCPA 1976) and Kropa v. Robie, 187 F.2d 150, 152, 88 USPQ 478, 481 (CCPA 1951).
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-25 and 27-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Arbuckle (U.S. Patent No. 1,997,035).
Regarding claim 1, Arbuckle discloses a blending system (title; figure 1) for blending a frozen mix within a container with a rim, a sidewall, and a bottom (reference #37), the blending system comprising:
a rotatable inner blade subassembly with at least one blade with a blade edge for shaving the frozen mix over an inner shaving zone Zi wherein the inner blade subassembly is adapted to shave the frozen mix in a first rotational direction (figures 1-2, reference #66 and 67; column 6, lines 19-27);
a rotatable outer blade subassembly with at least one blade with a blade edge for shaving the frozen mix over an outer shaving zone Zo wherein the outer blade subassembly is concentric with the inner blade subassembly and wherein the outer blade subassembly is adapted to shave the frozen mix in a second rotational direction opposite the first rotational direction (figures 1-2, reference #55, 56, 57, 61, 63, 64 and 65; column 6, lines 19-27);
wherein the inner blade subassembly and the outer blade subassembly are rotatable about a common rotational axis to form a shaving and blending assembly (figure 2, not labeled, axis through center of reference #66; column 6, lines 9-27);
whereby the blending system can shave and blend the frozen mix within the container over the inner and outer shaving zones Zi and Zo by a rotation of the inner blade subassembly in the first rotational direction and a simultaneous rotation of the outer blade subassembly in the second rotational direction (figures 1-2, reference #55, 56, 57, 61, 63, 64, 65, 66 and 67; column 6, lines 19-27).
Regarding limitations recited in claim 1 which are directed to a manner of operating disclosed system, namely for shaving and blending a frozen drink/mix, it is noted that neither the manner of operating a disclosed device nor material or article worked upon further limit an apparatus claim. Said limitations do not differentiate apparatus claims from prior art. See MPEP § 2114 and 2115. Further, it has been held that process limitations do not have patentable weight in an apparatus claim. See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969) that states “Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and to an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.” The limitation of a blade for shaving a frozen mix is narrative to effect of operation of blade structure and does not positively point out and claim structural elements of features of blade which imparts intended effect of shaving and/or blending as a further limitation of a patentable structural distinction from a blade element. Arbuckle disclose the limitation of a blade that is consistent with the structural limitations as recited, and the intended use of the blade for shaving a frozen mix does not differentiate the blade structure. Additionally, a preamble is generally not accorded any patentable weight where it merely recites the purpose of a process or the intended use of a structure, and where the body of the claim does not depend on the preamble for completeness but, instead, the process steps or structural limitations are able to stand alone. See In re Hirao, 535 F.2d 67, 190 USPQ 15 (CCPA 1976) and Kropa v. Robie, 187 F.2d 150, 152, 88 USPQ 478, 481 (CCPA 1951).
Regarding claim 2, Arbuckle discloses wherein the outer shaving zone Zo established by the outer blade subassembly has an inner diameter that is substantially fixed (figure 1, internal edge of reference #65 fixed) and an outer diameter that is adjustable to adapt to different diameters of the sidewall of the container (figures 1 and 2, reference #61 pivots/adjusts to sidewall of container; columns 3-4, lines 73-1).
Regarding claim 3, Arbuckle discloses wherein the inner shaving zone Zi established by the inner blade subassembly is fixed in outer diameter (figures 1-2, outer edge of reference #67 fixed).
Regarding claim 5, Arbuckle discloses wherein the at least one blade of the inner blade subassembly and the at least one blade of the outer blade subassembly have blade edges in a common plane perpendicular to the rotational axis (figure 1, reference #64 and 67) whereby, during shaving of the frozen mix, the inner blade subassembly will impart a rotational force on the frozen mix in the first rotational direction while the outer blade subassembly will simultaneously impart a rotational force on the frozen mix in the second rotational direction (column 6, lines 9-27).
Regarding claim 6, Arbuckle discloses wherein the inner blade subassembly has first and second blades that project in substantially opposite directions from the rotational axis (figures 1-2, reference #67).
Regarding claim 7, Arbuckle discloses wherein the at least one blade of the outer blade subassembly has a proximal end and a distal end and wherein the at least one blade of the outer blade subassembly is pivotally retained by the proximal end thereof whereby the outer shaving zone Zo is adjustable in outer diameter (figures 1 and 2, reference #61 with proximal end pivot not labeled; columns 3-4, lines 73-1).
Regarding claim 8, Arbuckle discloses wherein the blade edge of the at least one blade of the outer blade subassembly is angled to travel when rotated for shaving at an outward angle relative to a radius emanating from the rotational axis and with the distal end of the at least one blade of the outer blade subassembly disposed rotationally ahead of the proximal end of the at least one blade of the outer blade subassembly whereby, when the outer blade subassembly is rotated in the second rotational direction to shave the frozen mix, the frozen mix will tend to exert a force pressing the at least one blade to pivot outwardly thereby expanding an outer circumference of the outer shaving zone Zo (figures 1 and 2, reference #61; columns 3-4, lines 73-1). It is noted that the limitation is directed to an intended use of the blade which does not further limit an apparatus claim.
Regarding claim 9, Arbuckle discloses wherein the outer blade subassembly has first and second blades, each with a proximal end and a distal end and each pivotally retained by the proximal end thereof, wherein the blade edges of the first and second blades of the outer blade subassembly are angled to travel when rotated for shaving at an outward angle relative to a radius emanating from the rotational axis and with the distal ends of the first and second blades of the outer blade subassembly disposed rotationally ahead of the proximal ends of the first and second blades of the outer blade subassembly whereby, when the outer blade subassembly is rotated in the second rotational direction to shave the frozen mix, the frozen mix will tend to exert a force pressing the first and second blades of the outer blade subassembly to pivot outwardly thereby expanding an outer circumference of the outer shaving zone Zo (figures 1 and 2, two reference #61, each pivotally retained by proximal end; columns 3-4, lines 73-1). It is noted that the limitation is directed to an intended use of the blade which does not further limit an apparatus claim.
Regarding claim 10, Arbuckle discloses further comprising a traveler member fixed to pivot with the at least one blade of the outer blade subassembly wherein the traveler member has an outer surface that is smooth and arcuate and that is disposed radially outward of an outer surface of the at least one blade of the outer blade subassembly whereby direct contact between the outer surface of the at least one blade of the outer blade subassembly and the sidewall of the container is avoided (figure 1, reference #63; column 4, lines 1-5).
Regarding claim 11, Arbuckle discloses further comprising a tubular outer shaft (reference #39) and an inner shaft concentrically received within the outer shaft (reference #45) wherein the inner blade subassembly is adapted to be retained by and to rotate with the inner shaft (see figure 5, reference #66/68 connects to reference #45 through reference #69 connection; column 4, lines 16-24) and wherein the outer blade subassembly is adapted to be retained by and to rotate with the outer shaft (figure 5, reference #39, 44 and 55; column 3, lines 62-75).
Regarding claim 12, Arbuckle discloses further comprising a motor with an output shaft (figure 1, reference #16; column 2, lines 28-33), a drive assembly for rotating the inner blade subassembly in the first rotational direction in response to a rotation of the output shaft by the motor in a first rotational direction of the motor (figure 1, reference #17, 18, 21, 24, 26; columns 2-3, lines 28-10), and a drive assembly for rotating the outer blade subassembly in the second rotational direction in response to the rotation of the output shaft by the motor in the first rotational direction of the motor (figure 1, reference #17 and 18; columns 2-3, lines 28-10; column 6, lines 9-27).
Regarding claim 13, Arbuckle discloses further comprising a bonnet cover concentrically retained relative to the inner and outer shafts and the inner and outer blade subassemblies to enshroud the container when the shaving and blending assembly formed by the inner blade subassembly and the outer blade subassembly is extended to engage the container wherein the bonnet cover has a container sealing ring with a diameter for engaging the rim of the container (figure 1, reference #49 and 50; column 3, lines 52-61).
Regarding claim 14, Arbuckle discloses further comprising a container holder with a retainer cup for selectively receiving and retaining the container wherein the retainer cup has an upper rim and wherein the bonnet cover further comprises a container holder sealing ring for engaging the upper rim of the retainer cup of the container holder wherein the container holder sealing ring has a diameter greater than the diameter of the container sealing ring whereby the bonnet cover can enshroud the retainer cup of the container holder (figures 1 and 2, reference #48, 49).
Regarding claim 15, Arbuckle discloses further comprising a container with an inner volume for retaining a frozen mix (figures 1 and 2, reference #37).
Regarding claim 16, Arbuckle discloses further comprising an identifier retained by the container (it is noted that the shape and size of the walls of the container 37 itself can be considered an identifier).
Regarding claim 17, Arbuckle discloses further comprising a frozen mix disposed within the inner volume of the container wherein the frozen mix contained comprises a frozen suspension (title; column 1, lines 1-21). Regarding limitations recited in claim 17 which are directed to a manner of operating disclosed system and the material or article worked upon, it is noted that neither the manner of operating a disclosed device nor material or article worked upon further limit an apparatus claim. Said limitations do not differentiate apparatus claims from prior art. See MPEP § 2114 and 2115. Further, it has been held that process limitations do not have patentable weight in an apparatus claim. See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969) that states “Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and to an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.”
Regarding claim 18, Arbuckle discloses a blending system (title; figure 1) for blending a frozen mix within a container with a rim, a sidewall, and a bottom (reference #37), the blending system comprising:
a blade subassembly with at least one blade with a blade edge for shaving the frozen mix over a shaving zone wherein the blade subassembly is adapted to shave the frozen mix in a rotational direction about a rotational direction (figures 1-2, reference #55, 56, 57, 61, 63, 64 and 65; column 6, lines 19-27);
wherein the at least one blade of the blade subassembly has a proximal end and a distal end and wherein the at least one blade of the blade subassembly is pivotally retained by the proximal end thereof whereby the shaving zone is adjustable in outer diameter (figures 1 and 2, reference #61 with proximal end pivot not labeled; columns 3-4, lines 73-1).
Regarding limitations recited in claim 1 which are directed to a manner of operating disclosed system, namely for shaving and blending a frozen drink/mix, it is noted that neither the manner of operating a disclosed device nor material or article worked upon further limit an apparatus claim. Said limitations do not differentiate apparatus claims from prior art. See MPEP § 2114 and 2115. Further, it has been held that process limitations do not have patentable weight in an apparatus claim. See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969) that states “Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and to an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.” The limitation of a blade for shaving a frozen mix is narrative to effect of operation of blade structure and does not positively point out and claim structural elements of features of blade which imparts intended effect of shaving and/or blending as a further limitation of a patentable structural distinction from a blade element. Arbuckle disclose the limitation of a blade that is consistent with the structural limitations as recited, and the intended use of the blade for shaving a frozen mix does not differentiate the blade structure. Additionally, a preamble is generally not accorded any patentable weight where it merely recites the purpose of a process or the intended use of a structure, and where the body of the claim does not depend on the preamble for completeness but, instead, the process steps or structural limitations are able to stand alone. See In re Hirao, 535 F.2d 67, 190 USPQ 15 (CCPA 1976) and Kropa v. Robie, 187 F.2d 150, 152, 88 USPQ 478, 481 (CCPA 1951).
Regarding claim 19, Arbuckle discloses wherein the blade edge of the at least one blade of the blade subassembly is angled to travel when rotated for shaving at an outward angle relative to a radius emanating from the rotational axis and with the distal end of the at least one blade of the blade subassembly disposed rotationally ahead of the proximal end of the at least one blade of the blade subassembly whereby, when the blade subassembly is rotated in the rotational direction to shave the frozen mix, the frozen mix will tend to exert a force pressing the at least one blade to pivot outwardly thereby expanding an outer circumference of the shaving zone (figures 1 and 2, reference #61; columns 3-4, lines 73-1). It is noted that the limitation is directed to an intended use of the blade which does not further limit an apparatus claim.
Regarding claim 20, Arbuckle discloses wherein the blade subassembly has first and second blades, each with a proximal end and a distal end and each pivotally retained by the proximal end thereof, wherein the blade edges of the first and second blades of the blade subassembly are angled to travel when rotated for shaving at an outward angle relative to a radius emanating from the rotational axis and with the distal ends of the first and second blades of the blade subassembly disposed rotationally ahead of the proximal ends of the first and second blades of the blade subassembly whereby, when the blade subassembly is rotated in the rotational direction to shave the frozen mix, the frozen mix will tend to exert a force pressing the first and second blades of the blade subassembly to pivot outwardly thereby expanding an outer circumference of the shaving zone (figures 1 and 2, two reference #61, each pivotally retained by proximal end; columns 3-4, lines 73-1). It is noted that the limitation is directed to an intended use of the blade which does not further limit an apparatus claim.
Regarding claim 21, Arbuckle discloses further comprising a traveler member fixed to pivot with the at least one blade of the blade subassembly wherein the traveler member has an outer surface that is smooth and arcuate and that is disposed radially outward of an outer surface of the at least one blade of the blade subassembly whereby direct contact between the outer surface of the at least one blade of the blade subassembly and the sidewall of the container is avoided (figure 1, reference #63; column 4, lines 1-5).
Regarding claim 22, Arbuckle discloses wherein the blade subassembly comprises an outer blade subassembly for shaving the frozen mix over an outer shaving zone Zo (figures 1-2, reference #55, 56, 57, 61, 63, 64 and 65; column 6, lines 19-27) and further comprising a rotatable inner blade subassembly with at least one blade with a blade edge for shaving the frozen mix over an inner shaving zone Zi at least partially interior to the outer shaving zone Zo (figures 1-2, reference #66 and 67; column 6, lines 19-27) wherein the inner and outer blade subassemblies cooperate to form a shaving and blending assembly (figures 1-2, reference #55, 56, 57, 61, 63, 64, 65, 66 and 67; column 6, lines 9-27) and wherein the inner blade subassembly is adapted to shave the frozen mix in a first rotational direction, wherein the outer blade subassembly is concentric with the inner blade subassembly, wherein the outer blade subassembly is adapted to shave the frozen mix in a second rotational direction opposite the first rotational direction (figures 1-2, reference #55, 56, 57, 61, 63, 64, 65, 66 and 67; column 6, lines 9-27), and wherein the inner blade subassembly and the outer blade subassembly are rotatable about a common rotational axis whereby the shaving and blending system can shave and blend the frozen mix within the container over the inner and outer shaving zones Zi and Zo by a rotation of the inner blade subassembly in the first rotational direction and a simultaneous rotation of the outer blade subassembly in the second rotational direction (figure 2, not labeled, axis through center of reference #66; column 6, lines 9-27). Regarding limitations recited in claim 22 which are directed to a manner of operating disclosed system, it is noted that neither the manner of operating a disclosed device nor material or article worked upon further limit an apparatus claim. Said limitations do not differentiate apparatus claims from prior art. See MPEP § 2114 and 2115. Further, it has been held that process limitations do not have patentable weight in an apparatus claim. See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969) that states “Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and to an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.”
Regarding claim 23, Arbuckle discloses wherein the at least one blade of the inner blade subassembly and the at least one blade of the outer blade subassembly have blade edges in a common plane perpendicular to the rotational axis (figure 1, reference #64 and 67) whereby, during shaving of the frozen mix, the inner blade subassembly will impart a rotational force on the frozen mix in the first rotational direction while the outer blade subassembly will simultaneously impart a rotational force on the frozen mix in the second rotational direction (column 6, lines 9-27).
Regarding claim 24, Arbuckle discloses wherein the inner blade subassembly has first and second blades that project in substantially opposite directions from the rotational axis (figures 1-2, reference #67).
Regarding claim 25, Arbuckle discloses wherein the inner shaving zone Zi established by the inner blade subassembly is fixed in outer diameter (figures 1-2, outer edge of reference #67 fixed).
Regarding claim 27, Arbuckle discloses further comprising a tubular outer shaft (reference #39) and an inner shaft concentrically received within the outer shaft (reference #45) wherein the inner blade subassembly is adapted to be retained by and to rotate with the inner shaft (see figure 5, reference #66/68 connects to reference #45 through reference #69 connection; column 4, lines 16-24) and wherein the outer blade subassembly is adapted to be retained by and to rotate with the outer shaft (figure 5, reference #39, 44 and 55; column 3, lines 62-75).
Regarding claim 28, Arbuckle discloses further comprising a motor with an output shaft (figure 1, reference #16; column 2, lines 28-33), a drive assembly for rotating the inner blade subassembly in the first rotational direction in response to a rotation of the output shaft by the motor in a first rotational direction of the motor (figure 1, reference #17, 18, 21, 24, 26; columns 2-3, lines 28-10), and a drive assembly for rotating the outer blade subassembly in the second rotational direction in response to the rotation of the output shaft by the motor in the first rotational direction of the motor (figure 1, reference #17 and 18; columns 2-3, lines 28-10; column 6, lines 9-27).
Regarding claim 29, Arbuckle discloses further comprising a bonnet cover concentrically retained relative to the inner and outer shafts and the inner and outer blade subassemblies to enshroud the container when the shaving and blending assembly is extended to engage the container wherein the bonnet cover has a container sealing ring with a diameter for engaging the rim of the container (figure 1, reference #49 and 50; column 3, lines 52-61).
Regarding claim 30, Arbuckle discloses further comprising a container holder with a retainer cup for selectively receiving and retaining the container wherein the retainer cup has an upper rim and wherein the bonnet cover further comprises a container holder sealing ring for engaging the upper rim of the retainer cup of the container holder wherein the container holder sealing ring has a diameter greater than the diameter of the container sealing ring whereby the bonnet cover can enshroud the retainer cup of the container holder (figures 1 and 2, reference #48, 49).
Claim(s) 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Farrell (U.S. Patent No. 9,579,615).
Regarding claim 18, Farrell discloses a shaving and blending system for shaving and blending a frozen mix within a container with a rim, a sidewall, and a bottom (figure 8, reference #30; column 11, lines 1-4), the shaving and blending system comprising:
a blade subassembly with at least one blade with a blade edge for shaving the frozen mix over a shaving zone wherein the blade subassembly is adapted to shave the frozen mix in a rotational direction about a rotational axis (figures 15 and 21, reference #72 and 73; column 11, lines 1-24);
wherein the at least one blade of the blade subassembly has a proximal end and a distal end and wherein the at least one blade of the blade subassembly is pivotally retained by the proximal end thereof whereby the shaving zone is adjustable in outer diameter (figures 15 and 21, reference #73 with pivot not labeled; column 11, lines 1-24).
Regarding claim 19, Farrell discloses wherein the blade edge of the at least one blade of the blade subassembly is angled to travel when rotated for shaving at an outward angle relative to a radius emanating from the rotational axis and with the distal end of the at least one blade of the blade subassembly disposed rotationally ahead of the proximal end of the at least one blade of the blade subassembly whereby, when the blade subassembly is rotated in the rotational direction to shave the frozen mix, the frozen mix will tend to exert a force pressing the at least one blade to pivot outwardly thereby expanding an outer circumference of the shaving zone (figures 15 and 21, reference #73; column 11, lines 1-24). Regarding limitations recited in claim 19 which are directed to a manner of operating disclosed system, it is noted that neither the manner of operating a disclosed device nor material or article worked upon further limit an apparatus claim. Said limitations do not differentiate apparatus claims from prior art. See MPEP § 2114 and 2115. Further, it has been held that process limitations do not have patentable weight in an apparatus claim. See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969) that states “Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and to an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.”
Regarding claim 20, Farrell discloses wherein the blade subassembly has first and second blades, each with a proximal end and a distal end and each pivotally retained by the proximal end thereof, wherein the blade edges of the first and second blades of the blade subassembly are angled to travel when rotated for shaving at an outward angle relative to a radius emanating from the rotational axis and with the distal ends of the first and second blades of the blade subassembly disposed rotationally ahead of the proximal ends of the first and second blades of the blade subassembly whereby, when the blade subassembly is rotated in the rotational direction to shave the frozen mix, the frozen mix will tend to exert a force pressing the first and second blades of the blade subassembly to pivot outwardly thereby expanding an outer circumference of the shaving zone (figures 15 and 21, two reference #73; column 11, lines 1-24). Regarding limitations recited in claim 19 which are directed to a manner of operating disclosed system, it is noted that neither the manner of operating a disclosed device nor material or article worked upon further limit an apparatus claim. Said limitations do not differentiate apparatus claims from prior art. See MPEP § 2114 and 2115. Further, it has been held that process limitations do not have patentable weight in an apparatus claim. See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969) that states “Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and to an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus 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.
Claim(s) 4 and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arbuckle in view of Heier.
Regarding claims 4 and 26, Arbuckle discloses all the limitations as set forth above. However, the reference does not explicitly disclose wherein the outer shaving zone Zo has an inner diameter and wherein the outer diameter of the inner shaving zone Zi established by the inner blade subassembly is smaller than the inner diameter of the outer shaving zone Zo established by the outer blade subassembly.
Heier teaches another rotating blade food blender (abstract; figure 3). The reference teaches wherein the outer shaving zone Zo has an inner diameter (figure 3, inner edge of reference #138) and wherein the outer diameter of the inner shaving zone Zi established by the inner blade subassembly is smaller than the inner diameter of the outer shaving zone Zo established by the outer blade subassembly (figure 3, outer edge reference #116 smaller than inner edge reference #138).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the blade diameters of Arbuckle so that the outer diameter of the inner shaving zone Zi established by the inner blade subassembly is smaller than the inner diameter of the outer shaving zone Zo established by the outer blade subassembly as taught by Heier. One of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect such a combination to be suitable given that both references teach rotating blades food blenders. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do the foregoing because the blades would cover the entire blending area of the container without interfering or contacting each other, and since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size (or dimension) of a component. A change in size (dimension) is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and the device having the claimed dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device, Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kniele et al. (U.S. Patent No. 6,390,664) discloses a blending system with rotatable inner blade assembly (figure 1, reference #2, 5, 7 and 17; column 1, lines 51-53), rotatable outer blade assembly (figure 1, reference #8, 9 and 10; column 1, lines 53-61) in simultaneous opposite rotational directions (figure 1, reference #2, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 17; column 1, lines 47-61) with outer blade pivotally retained (figures 1 and 2, reference #8 and 9; column 2, lines 12-19). Ouyang (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2019/0045976) discloses a blending system (abstract) with rotatable inner blade assembly (reference #24), rotatable outer blade assembly (reference #26) in simultaneous opposite rotational directions ([0051]-[0053]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIZABETH INSLER whose telephone number is (571)270-0492. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00am-5:00pm.
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 X 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.
/ELIZABETH INSLER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1774