DETAILED ACTION
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.
Claims 1, 2, 3, 6, 10, 13, and 15, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Cody (WO2017136635A1).
Regarding claim 1, Cody teaches a food processing apparatus (figures 15 and 16) having a food processing chamber (item 100) comprising: a blade arrangement (item 110) and a motor arranged to drive the blade arrangement (paragraph 34 blade plate is rotated about an axis by a motor), wherein the blade arrangement excludes a central shaft (item 110 is void of a central shaft) and comprises a body having a surface arrangement delimited by a cavity (item 110 is considered reading on a body, the space in item 110 housing the blades is considered reading on a cavity), and a plurality of cutting blades extending from said surface arrangement into said cavity (items 114 and 118), wherein the motor comprises a mechanical coupling for coupling to the food processing chamber (item 62) such as to rotate the food processing chamber including the blade arrangement (item 62 drives both item 100 and item 110, paragraph 84 teaches item 100 and item 110 rotate), wherein the mechanical coupling comprises a central shaft driven by the motor (figure 16 see shaft below item 62 driving item 62) and at least one engagement member coupled to the central shaft to engage with a securing ring or the body (item 100 has a bottom portion corresponding shape engaging item 62, the bottom portion corresponding shape is considered reading on an engagement member coupled to the central shaft via item 62, and item 62 is used to engage and drive the body of item 110 via item 100).
Regarding claim 2, Cody teaches wherein the body is a cylindrical body (item 100 is a cylinder shape as shown in figures 15 and 16).
Regarding claim 3, Cody teaches wherein the plurality of cutting blades are offset to each other along a central axis of said body (see figure 15 items 114 and 118 are considered offset relative to an axis along the center of item 100).
Regarding claim 6, Cody teaches further comprising a protective cover (item 40) at least partially covering the food processing chamber (item 40 covers item 100 from both the sides and the bottom surface).
Regarding claim 10, Cody teaches wherein the at least one engagement member (the bottom portion of item 100 is considered reading on an engagement member) is mounted on a further body (item 60) attached to a central shaft (central shaft is mounted to item 62).
Regarding claim 13, Cody teaches further comprising a docking station for the food processing chamber (paragraph 77 teaches a base with a motorized unit therein), wherein said docking station comprises a base including the motor for engaging with a bottom of the food processing chamber (paragraph 77 teaches the base 22 is used to drive the rotation spindle, the spindle 62 engages the bottom of item 100 as shown in figure 15) including the blade arrangement (item 110 is rotated when item 100 is rotated by item 62) and a holder opposing the base for engaging with a top portion of the food processing chamber (lid item 130 is considered reading on a holder that engages the top portion of item 100 and blade assembly 110).
Regarding claim 15, Cody teaches wherein the food processing apparatus is a blender (paragraph 2, apparatus in figure 5 is considered capable of blending food).
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 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cody (WO2017136635A1) in view of Dickson (U.S. Publication 2016/0256005).
Regarding claim 11, Cody is silent to the magnetic configuration. Regarding claim 11, Dickson teaches wherein the motor comprises a stator (paragraph 167 teaches the motor comprises a stator) arranged to create a rotating magnetic field (paragraph 168 teaches a magnetic carrier 268 on the drive shaft) and the body is responsive to said rotating magnetic field (this is an inherent effect of the magnets being on the rotating shaft). Regarding claim 11, 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 drive of Cody with the magnetic rotor stator configuration of Dickson in order to reduce heat and noise from the drive (see Dickson paragraph 133).
Regarding claim 12, Cody is silent to the magnetic configuration. Regarding claim 12, Dickson teaches the magnetic carrier below the body (see item 268 which are part of the drive shaft). Regarding claim 12, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to rearrange the location of the magnets in order to control better control the blending 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.
Response to Arguments
The remarks regarding the claim 4 objection have been considered and are persuasive in light of the amendment to the claim. Therefore, the claim 4 objection is withdrawn.
Regarding the claim 1 rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1), Applicant argues that Cody (WO2017136635A1) does not teach a body having a surface delimiting a cavity and a plurality of cutting blades extending from said surface arrangement into said cavity. However, there is a space in item 110 formed by the side and bottom walls is considered reading on a cavity, the blades (items 114 and 118 extend from said surface into said cavity). Applicant additionally argues that Cody does not mention the spindle 62 does not engage the body of blade plate 110. However, item 62 drives item 110 via item 100.
The remarks regarding the remaining claims are based off the rejection of claim 1 and are rejected accordingly.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 7, 8, and 14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 4, the prior art does not teach or fairly suggest a food processing apparatus with the combination of the motor coupling configuration to rotate the food processing chamber including the blade arrangement with the securing ring arranged to secure the blade arrangement specifically on the bottom portion of the food processing chamber.
Regarding claim 7, the prior art does not teach or fairly suggest a food processing apparatus with the combination of the motor coupling configuration to rotate the food processing chamber including the blade arrangement.
Regarding claim 8, the prior art does not teach or fairly suggest a food processing apparatus with the combination of the motor coupling configuration to rotate the food processing chamber including the blade arrangement with either the body rates within the food processing chamber or the food processing chamber rotates relative to the body as claimed in dependent claim 8.
Regarding claim 14, the prior art does not teach or fairly suggest a food processing apparatus with the combination of the motor coupling configuration to rotate the food processing chamber including the blade arrangement with the docking station configuration, and tilted orientation when docked in said docking station.
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 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
Prosecution Insights