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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05/26/2026 and 07/27/2026 was filed after the mailing date of the Non-final on 04/09/2026. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 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 1-3, 5-6, 10, 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated over Lambourn (US 20150342409 A1).
Regarding independent claim 1, Lambourn discloses, a cooking device (see domestic blender 10 in Fig. 11 and Fig. 13, wherein a blender is considered a cooking device because it is a kitchen appliance specifically designed to assist in food preparation and cooking tasks), comprising:
a cooking container (see receptacle 14 in Fig. 11) that has a cooking implement (see tool 50 in Fig. 11) and that is equipped with a cup (see jug as disclosed in para 0065 “the receptacle 14 comprises a jug having a handle 16 connected to a side wall 18”) to which a lid (see lid 26 in Fig. 11) is attachable (see Fig. 11 and disclosed in para 0066 “the opening 22 may be closed by a removable lid 26. As illustrated, the lid 26 may have two parts; a central part removably located within an outer part which is fitted into the opening 22 of the receptacle 14”);
a body (see base 12 in Fig. 11) to which the cooking container (14) is attached (see Fig. 11) and which causes the cooking implement (50) to rotate (see Fig. 11 and disclosed in para 0072 “The tool 50 is rotatable about a rotational axis R. The tool 50 comprises a shaft 52 which has a longitudinal axis which is collinear with the rotational axis R of the tool”),
wherein the cooking container (14) is slidably attached (see Fig. 11 and disclosed in para 0079 “To connect the receptacle 14 to the base 12, the user moves the receptacle 14 along the rotational axis of the drive shaft 102 of the motor 86, that is, in a direction which is inclined to the longitudinal axis X of the receptacle 14, to bring the first coupling member 84 into engagement with the second coupling member 100”) to and detached (see Fig. 13 and disclosed in para 0079 “To subsequently remove the receptacle 14 from the base 12, the user simply pulls the receptacle 14 away from the base 12 in a direction extending along the rotational axis of the drive shaft 102 of the motor 86 to decouple the coupling members 84, 100”) from the body in a non-vertical direction (see Fig. 11, Fig. 13 and disclosed in para 0077 “the rotational axis R of the tool 50 is inclined to the longitudinal axis X of the receptacle 14, and intersects the longitudinal axis X of the receptacle 14 at an angle of 45°. The joints between the upper blade sections 72 and the lower blade sections 66 of the tool 50 are located substantially in the plane P2 containing the lower end 30 of the side wall 18”).
Regarding claim 2, Lambourn discloses, the cooking device according to claim 1, Lambourn further discloses, wherein the cooking container (14) is attachable (see Fig. 11) and detachable (see Fig. 13) with respect to the body in a non-vertical direction of 0° to 75° relative to a horizontal direction (see Fig. 11 and disclosed in para 0077 “the rotational axis R of the tool 50 is inclined to the longitudinal axis X of the receptacle 14, and intersects the longitudinal axis X of the receptacle 14 at an angle of 45°. The joints between the upper blade sections 72 and the lower blade sections 66 of the tool 50 are located substantially in the plane P2 containing the lower end 30 of the side wall 18”).
Regarding claim 3, Lambourn discloses, the cooking device according to claim 1, Lambourn further discloses, wherein the body (12) has a lock mechanism (see second coupling member 100 in Fig. 11 and Fig. 13) that prevents the cooking container (14) from falling off and/or displaced (see Fig. 11 and disclosed in para 0079 “the coupling members 84, 100 mesh together to connect the tool 50 to the motor 86 to allow torque to be transferred from the motor 86 to the tool 50”).
Regarding claim 5, Lambourn discloses, the cooking device according to claim 1, Lambourn further discloses, wherein a rotation center (see rotational axis R in Fig. 11) of the cooking implement (50) is inclined in a non-vertical direction (see Fig. 11) with the cooking container (14) attached (see Fig. 11) to the body (12), and the body (12) rotates the cooking implement (50) about a non-vertical axis (see Fig. 11 and disclosed in para 0080 “a user depresses an appropriate button of the user interface 20 to activate the motor 86 to rotate the tool 50 to process foodstuff material introduced to the receptacle 14. As the bladed member 54 rotates about the rotational axis R of the tool 50”).
Regarding claim 6, Lambourn discloses, the cooking device according to claim 1, Lambourn further discloses, wherein the cooking container (14) has an upper edge side (see side wall 18 in Fig. 11) extending in a vertical direction (see X axis in Fig. 11).
Regarding claim 10, Lambourn discloses, the cooking device according to claim 2, Lambourn further discloses, wherein the body (12) has a lock mechanism (see second coupling member 100 in Fig. 11 and Fig. 13) that prevents the cooking container (14) from falling off and/or displaced (see Fig. 11 and disclosed in para 0079 “the coupling members 84, 100 mesh together to connect the tool 50 to the motor 86 to allow torque to be transferred from the motor 86 to the tool 50”).
Regarding claim 12, Lambourn discloses, the cooking device according to claim 2, Lambourn further discloses, wherein a rotation center (see rotational axis R in Fig. 11) of the cooking implement (50) is inclined in a non-vertical direction (see Fig. 11) with the cooking container (14) attached (see Fig. 11) to the body (12), and the body (12) rotates the cooking implement (50) about a non-vertical axis (see Fig. 11 and disclosed in para 0080 “a user depresses an appropriate button of the user interface 20 to activate the motor 86 to rotate the tool 50 to process foodstuff material introduced to the receptacle 14. As the bladed member 54 rotates about the rotational axis R of the tool 50”).
Regarding claim 13, Lambourn discloses, the cooking device according to claim 2, Lambourn further discloses, wherein the cooking container (14) has an upper edge side (see side wall 18 in Fig. 11) extending in a vertical direction (see X axis in Fig. 11).
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 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.
Claims 4, 7, 11, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lambourn in view of Kim (CN 107624046 A cited in the IDS filed on 05/26/2026 and US 20180140138 A1 as the English translation).
Regarding claim 4, Lambourn discloses, the cooking device according to claim 1, Lambourn further discloses, body (12) is separated from a placement surface (see bottom wall 28 in Fig. 11).
However, Lambourn does not explicitly disclose, wherein the body has an installation detection switch comprising a retractable operation member that detects that the body is separated from a placement surface while the cooking implement is rotating.
Nonetheless, Kim teaches, wherein the body (see main body 110 in Fig. 6) has an installation detection switch (see locking part 200) comprising a retractable operation member (see elastic protrusion 201 in Fig. 6) that detects that the body is separated from a placement surface while the cooking implement is rotating (disclosed in para 0087 “In order to operation the locking part 200, a locking groove 135a is formed at a corresponding position of the elastic protrusion 201 in the cooking vessel 130, particularly, in the gripping handle 135 thereof so that an elastic protrusion 201 is inserted and caught”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filling date (post AIA ) to modify the body of the cooking device of Lambourn wherein the body has an installation detection switch comprising a retractable operation member that detects that the body is separated from a placement surface while the cooking implement is rotating as taught/suggested by Kim in order to prevent the cooking container from being detached during the operation and only allow separation of the cooking container by retreating the retractable operation member upon the pressing of the release push button. Doing so would prevent spillage cause by the separation of the container and body during operation (see para 0087 of Kim).
Regarding claim 7, Lambourn discloses, the cooking device according to claim 1.
However, Lambourn does not explicitly disclose, wherein the body has a lid detection switch comprising a retractable operation member that detects the lid with the cooking container attached.
Nonetheless, Kim teaches, wherein the body (see main body 110 in Fig. 3) has a lid detection switch (see micro switch 189 in Fig. 3 and Fig. 5) comprising a retractable operation member (see the operation pin 187 in Fig. 3 and Fig. 5) that detects the lid with the cooking container attached (see Fig. 5 and disclosed in para 0078 “an operation pin 187 including one end coupled with a bottom end of the second operation rod 185 to being vertically moved integrally with the second operation rod 185; and a micro switch 189 connected with an opposite end of the operation pin 187 to be turned on/off according to a vertical motion of the second operation rod 185 to provide a signal according to presence of coupling of the vessel cover 140 to the controller 170”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filling date (post AIA ) to modify the body of the cooking device of Lambourn wherein the body has a lid detection switch comprising a retractable operation member that detects the lid with the cooking container attached as taught/suggested by Kim in order to stop the rotation of the cooking implement when the lid is not attached to the container. Doing so would prevent spillage or splatter when lid is not covering the container (see para 0079 of Kim).
Regarding claim 11, Lambourn discloses, the cooking device according to claim 2, Lambourn further discloses, body (12) is separated from a placement surface (see bottom wall 28 in Fig. 11).
However, Lambourn does not explicitly disclose, wherein the body has an installation detection switch comprising a retractable operation member that detects that the body is separated from a placement surface while the cooking implement is rotating.
Nonetheless, Kim teaches, wherein the body (see main body 110 in Fig. 6) has an installation detection switch (see locking part 200) comprising a retractable operation member (see elastic protrusion 201 in Fig. 6) that detects that the body is separated from a placement surface while the cooking implement is rotating (disclosed in para 0087 “In order to operation the locking part 200, a locking groove 135a is formed at a corresponding position of the elastic protrusion 201 in the cooking vessel 130, particularly, in the gripping handle 135 thereof so that an elastic protrusion 201 is inserted and caught”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filling date (post AIA ) to modify the body of the cooking device of Lambourn wherein the body has an installation detection switch comprising a retractable operation member that detects that the body is separated from a placement surface while the cooking implement is rotating as taught/suggested by Kim in order to prevent the cooking container from being detached during the operation and only allow separation of the cooking container by retreating the retractable operation member upon the pressing of the release push button. Doing so would prevent spillage cause by the separation of the container and body during operation (see para 0087 of Kim).
Regarding claim 14, Lambourn discloses, the cooking device according to claim 2.
However, Lambourn does not explicitly disclose, wherein the body has a lid detection switch comprising a retractable operation member that detects the lid with the cooking container attached.
Nonetheless, Kim teaches, wherein the body (see main body 110 in Fig. 3) has a lid detection switch (see micro switch 189 in Fig. 3 and Fig. 5) comprising a retractable operation member (see the operation pin 187 in Fig. 3 and Fig. 5) that detects the lid with the cooking container attached (see Fig. 5 and disclosed in para 0078 “an operation pin 187 including one end coupled with a bottom end of the second operation rod 185 to being vertically moved integrally with the second operation rod 185; and a micro switch 189 connected with an opposite end of the operation pin 187 to be turned on/off according to a vertical motion of the second operation rod 185 to provide a signal according to presence of coupling of the vessel cover 140 to the controller 170”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filling date (post AIA ) to modify the body of the cooking device of Lambourn wherein the body has a lid detection switch comprising a retractable operation member that detects the lid with the cooking container attached as taught/suggested by Kim in order to stop the rotation of the cooking implement when the lid is not attached to the container. Doing so would prevent spillage or splatter when lid is not covering the container (see para 0079 of Kim).
Claims 8-9, and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lambourn in view of Kim (US 20220257058 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Lambourn discloses, the cooking device according to claim 1, Lambourn further discloses, the cooking container (14) is pushed with respect to the body (12) in a non-vertical direction to attach to each other (see Fig. 11).
However, Lambourn does not explicitly disclose, wherein a buffer member is provided between the body and the cooking container to prevent the cooking container from being excessively pushed with respect to the body.
Nonetheless, Kim teaches, wherein a buffer member (see elastic member 930 in Fig. 7) is provided between the body (see main body 500) and the cooking container (container body 100) to prevent the cooking container from being excessively pushed with respect to the body (disclosed in para 0196 “The elastic member 930 may be made of an elastic material, and thus may function to buffer impact which may be generated when the container body 100 sits on the blender body 500. That is, when the lower surface of the container body 100 sitting on the upper step 920 is in contact with the upper step 920, the elastic member 930 may function to prevent breakage or noise that may occur due to the collision of the lower surface of the container body 100 with the upper step 920 and the lower step 910 of the blender body 500, which are made of solid materials”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filling date (post AIA ) to modify the body and/or the cooking container of Lambourn wherein a buffer member is provided between the body and the cooking container to prevent the cooking container from being excessively pushed with respect to the body as taught/suggest by Kim in order to prevent breakage or noise that may occur due to the collision of the body and the cooking container (disclosed in para 0196 of Kim).
PNG
media_image1.png
570
868
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 9, Lambourn discloses, the cooking device according to claim 1, Lambourn further discloses, wherein a bottom surface (see bottom wall 28 in Fig. 11) of the cooking container (14) has two contact edges (see annotated Fig. 11) that, when the cooking container (14) is tilted from a state of being placed on (see Fig. 11) a placement surface (supporting surface 106 in Fig. 11), come into contact with the placement surface (see Fig. 11).
However, Lambourn does not explicitly disclose, wherein the cooking container has a spout with an upper edge protruding outward so as the cooking container is tilted toward the spout.
Nonetheless, Kim teaches, wherein the cooking container (100) has a spout (see spout in Fig. 2) with an upper edge protruding outward (see Fig. 2) so as the cooking container is tilted toward the spout (disclosed in para 0091 “the spout 210 may be formed on the upper end of the left surface of the container body 100, and may be a part through which food completely crushed in the container body 100 is guided to be easily poured to the outside”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filling date (post AIA ) to modify the cooking container of Lambourn wherein the cooking container has a spout with an upper edge protruding outward so as the cooking container is tilted toward the spout as taught/suggested by Kim in order to easily guide or pour the crushed food from the cooking container (see para 0091 of Kim).
Regarding claim 15, Lambourn discloses, the cooking device according to claim 2, Lambourn further discloses, the cooking container (14) is pushed with respect to the body (12) in a non-vertical direction to attach to each other (see Fig. 11).
However, Lambourn does not explicitly disclose, wherein a buffer member is provided between the body and the cooking container to prevent the cooking container from being excessively pushed with respect to the body.
Nonetheless, Kim teaches, wherein a buffer member (see elastic member 930 in Fig. 7) is provided between the body (see main body 500) and the cooking container (container body 100) to prevent the cooking container from being excessively pushed with respect to the body (disclosed in para 0196 “The elastic member 930 may be made of an elastic material, and thus may function to buffer impact which may be generated when the container body 100 sits on the blender body 500. That is, when the lower surface of the container body 100 sitting on the upper step 920 is in contact with the upper step 920, the elastic member 930 may function to prevent breakage or noise that may occur due to the collision of the lower surface of the container body 100 with the upper step 920 and the lower step 910 of the blender body 500, which are made of solid materials”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filling date (post AIA ) to modify the body and/or the cooking container of Lambourn wherein a buffer member is provided between the body and the cooking container to prevent the cooking container from being excessively pushed with respect to the body as taught/suggest by Kim in order to prevent breakage or noise that may occur due to the collision of the body and the cooking container (disclosed in para 0196 of Kim).
Regarding claim 16, Lambourn discloses, the cooking device according to claim 2, Lambourn further discloses, wherein a bottom surface (see bottom wall 28 in Fig. 11) of the cooking container (14) has two contact edges (see annotated Fig. 11) that, when the cooking container (14) is tilted from a state of being placed on (see Fig. 11) a placement surface (supporting surface 106 in Fig. 11), come into contact with the placement surface (see Fig. 11).
However, Lambourn does not explicitly disclose, wherein the cooking container has a spout with an upper edge protruding outward so as the cooking container is tilted toward the spout.
Nonetheless, Kim teaches, wherein the cooking container (100) has a spout (see spout in Fig. 2) with an upper edge protruding outward (see Fig. 2) so as the cooking container is tilted toward the spout (disclosed in para 0091 “the spout 210 may be formed on the upper end of the left surface of the container body 100, and may be a part through which food completely crushed in the container body 100 is guided to be easily poured to the outside”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filling date (post AIA ) to modify the cooking container of Lambourn wherein the cooking container has a spout with an upper edge protruding outward so as the cooking container is tilted toward the spout as taught/suggested by Kim in order to easily guide or pour the crushed food from the cooking container (see para 0091 of Kim).
Response to Amendment
The amendment of 07/06/2026 is acknowledged.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see remarks, filed on 07/26/2026 have been fully considered. However, Lambourn discloses, wherein the cooking container (14) is slidably attached (see Fig. 11 and disclosed in para 0079 “To connect the receptacle 14 to the base 12, the user moves the receptacle 14 along the rotational axis of the drive shaft 102 of the motor 86, that is, in a direction which is inclined to the longitudinal axis X of the receptacle 14, to bring the first coupling member 84 into engagement with the second coupling member 100”) to and detached (see Fig. 13 and disclosed in para 0079 “To subsequently remove the receptacle 14 from the base 12, the user simply pulls the receptacle 14 away from the base 12 in a direction extending along the rotational axis of the drive shaft 102 of the motor 86 to decouple the coupling members 84, 100”) from the body in a non-vertical direction (see Fig. 11, Fig. 13 and disclosed in para 0077 “the rotational axis R of the tool 50 is inclined to the longitudinal axis X of the receptacle 14, and intersects the longitudinal axis X of the receptacle 14 at an angle of 45°. The joints between the upper blade sections 72 and the lower blade sections 66 of the tool 50 are located substantially in the plane P2 containing the lower end 30 of the side wall 18”).
In other words, the moving action of the user to attach the cooking container to the body does not distingue the slidable action of the cooking container to the body such that when the user is moving the cooking container to the body, the cooking container must somewhat slide into the body to be in contact with the body and attached to the body. In a reversible manner, when the user is pulling the cooking container from the body, the cooking container must somewhat slide out from the body to be not in contact with the body and detached from the body.
The remarks provide a conclusion requesting allowance. However, the claims are presently rejected as set forth and explained above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VY T NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571) 272-6015. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday approx. 9:00 am-5:00 pm ET.
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, Ibrahime Abraham can be reached on (571) 270-5569. 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.
/VY T NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights