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
Claim 15 is objected to. It is suggested that “is mounted to adjacent the cover member” be amended to “is mounted adjacent the cover member” in order to enhance the clarity of the claim.
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, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mulle (U.S. Publication 2005/0056160) in view of Starflinger (U.S. Publication 2016/0120370).
Regarding claim 1, Mulle teaches a food processing device (shown in figures 1-4), including: a base (item 14) having a drive motor (item 28); a vessel removably mounted on the base (item 16) and including a bottom wall (item 16 has a bottom wall that engages item 14), a side wall extending upwardly from the bottom wall (walls of item 16 that extend upwards toward item 180) to a cover member (item 18), the cover member including a feed tube extending upwardly therefrom (item 44 which extends upward from item 18); a pusher member adapted to be slidably received in the feed tube (item 20 which is shown housed in item 44 in figure 4); and an interlock system operatively associated with the drive motor to enable operation of the drive motor (paragraph 24 optical interlock item 1), the system including: a light transmitter (light emitter item 4) and a light sensor (light detector item 8), the transmitter being operable to provide a path of light that is receivable by the light sensor (paragraph 24 emitter 4 emits a signal 6, item 8 detects the signal 6), light channel having an input end portion associated with the light transmitter and an output end portion associated with the light sensor to allow the path of light to travel therethrough (see figure 1 channel is shown by the path of item 6 from item 4 to item 8); and a light reflector located between the input and output end portions of the light channel (item 36) thereby enabling operation of the drive motor by engagement of the pusher member (paragraph 26 teaches the appliance may be ready for use once the control switch is activated, paragraph 34 teaches item 20 is used with actuator 12 to interact with optical interlock 1). Regarding claim 1, Mulle is silent to the light blocker configuration. Regarding claim 1, Starflinger teaches light blocker (figure 3 item 6) located between the input and output end portions of the light channel (input end at item 9 and the output end at item 10 of the light channel), the light blocker being movable between a closed position to block the path of light travelling through the light channel (positioning device 8 moves into a closed position to block the optical path), an open position to permit the path of light through the light channel such that the sensor receives the path of light (positioning device 8 moves item 6 into an opening position in which the optical path is completed). Regarding claim 1, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the light path of the blender of Mulle with the positioning device and blocking portion of Starflinger in order to obtain a more accurate interlock operation of the blender (see Starflinger paragraphs 6 and 8).
Regarding claim 2, Mulle teaches wherein the light channel comprises: an input channel having a first end portion and a second end portion that is spaced from the first end portion (input channel extending form item 4 to item 36, the first end proximate item 4 and second end proximate item 36), with the first end portion of the input channel providing the input end portion of the light channel (the first end proximate item 4 provides light input); and an output channel having a first end portion and a second end portion that is spaced from the first end portion of the output channel (the channel extending from item 8 to item 36, first end portion proximate item 36 and the second end portion proximate item 8), with the first end portion of the output channel being disposed adjacent the second end portion of the input channel (light proximate item 36), and the second end portion of the output channel providing the output end portion of the light channel (item 8 is considered providing the output end of the light channel).
Regarding claim 3, Mulle teaches wherein the light reflector is located between the second end portion of the input channel and the first end portion of the output channel (item 36 is between the channel formed by item 4 and item 36 and the second channel formed between item 8 and item 36). Regarding claim 3, Mulle is silent to the light blocker configuration. Regarding claim 3, Starflinger teaches light blocker (figure 3 item 6) located between the input and output end portions of the light channel (input end at item 9 and the output end at item 10 of the light channel). Regarding claim 3, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the light path of the blender of Mulle with the positioning device and blocking portion of Starflinger in order to obtain a more accurate interlock operation of the blender (see Starflinger paragraphs 6 and 8).
Mulle is silent to the language of claim 4. Regarding claim 4, Starflinger teaches wherein the light blocker is biased towards the closed position such that the path of light between the light transmitter and the light sensor is blocked in a resting state of the interlock system. (figure 3 item 6 is considered in the resting position when blocking the light). Regarding claim 4, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the light path of the blender of Mulle with the positioning device and blocking portion of Starflinger in order to obtain a more accurate interlock operation of the blender (see Starflinger paragraphs 6 and 8).
Regarding claim 5, Mulle teaches further including a microprocessor that is operatively associated with the light sensor and the motor, wherein the microprocessor sends a signal to enable operation of the motor upon the sensor detecting the path of light (paragraph 11 teaches a controller, which inherently would require a microprocessor in order to function).
Regarding claim 6, Mulle teaches wherein the cover member of the vessel comprises a lid that is removably coupled to a rim that is defined by the side wall of the vessel (item 18 is a lid), with the rim surrounding a top opening of the vessel (item 18 surrounds the upper rim of item 16).
Regarding claim 7, Mulle teaches wherein the light transmitter and the light sensor are each located adjacent the bottom wall of the vessel (see figure 1 items 4 and 8 are adjacent the bottom wall of item 16).
Regarding claim 8, Mulle teaches wherein the light transmitter and the light sensor are each located on the base (items 4 and 8 are on item 14 proximate the bottom wall of item 16).
Regarding claim 9, Mulle teaches the light sensor is on the base (figure 1 item 4). Regarding claim 9, Mulle is silent to the light transmitter located on the vessel. Regarding claim 9, absent any unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to rearrange the location of the light transmitter in order to obtain the desired interlock configuration since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Regarding claim 11, Mulle teaches wherein the light channel extends along the side of the wall of the vessel (see figure 1 channel from items 4 and 8 to item 36 extend along the sidewall of item 16).
Regarding claim 12, Mulle teaches wherein the light channel extends along the side wall of the vessel and along a sidewall of the feed tube (item 24 which houses items 4 and 8, see paragraph 27, extends along a sidewall of item 16 up to a sidewall of item 4 proximate item 36).
Regarding claim 13, Mulle teaches wherein the vessel includes a handle (item 26), and the light channel extends along the handle of the vessel (paragraph 28 teaches the guide may pass through the handle item 26).
Mulle is silent to the language of claim 14. Regarding claim 14, Starflinger teaches a light blocker (item 6 mounted to item 8). Regarding claim 14, if would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the light path of the blender of Mulle with the positioning device and blocking portion of Starflinger in order to obtain a more accurate interlock operation of the blender (see Starflinger paragraphs 6 and 8). Regarding claim 14, absent any unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the location of the interlock configuration in order to obtain the desired interlock operation since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Mulle is silent to the language of claim 15. Regarding claim 15, Starflinger teaches a light blocker (item 6 mounted to item 8) adjacent a cover member (items 6 is proximate item 5). Regarding claim 15, if would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the light path of the blender of Mulle with the positioning device and blocking portion of Starflinger in order to obtain a more accurate interlock operation of the blender (see Starflinger paragraphs 6 and 8).
Regarding claim 16, Mulle teaches wherein the feed tube includes a longitudinal slot (space housing item 38), and the pusher member includes a body (center portion denoted by item 20,) and a rail portion that extends along the body in a longitudinal direction (item 12), wherein the rail portion is adapted to be received by the longitudinal slot of the feed tube (item 12 engages with item 38, see paragraph 30), and a reflector that reflects light upon engagement of the rail portion of the pusher member with the longitudinal slot of the feed tube (see paragraph 30). Regarding claim 16, Mulle is silent wherein the light blocker and the location of the light blocker. Regarding claim 16, if would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the light path of the blender of Mulle with the positioning device and blocking portion of Starflinger in order to obtain a more accurate interlock operation of the blender (see Starflinger paragraphs 6 and 8). Regarding claim 16, absent any unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the location of the interlock configuration in order to obtain the desired interlock operation since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mulle (U.S. Publication 2005/0056160) in view of Starflinger (U.S. Publication 2016/0120370) in further view of Kolar (U.S. Publication 2016/0309960).
Mulle is silent to the induction configuration of claim 10. Regarding claim 10, Kolar teaches using induction to power the interlock proximate the base of the blender (see paragraph 32). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the interlock of Mulle in view of Starflinger with the induction configuration of Kolar in order to allow for a more convenient operation of the blender.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANSHU BHATIA whose telephone number is (571)270-7628. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 11 a.m. to 7:30 p.m..
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Claire Wang can be reached at (571)270-1051. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ANSHU BHATIA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1774