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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Luxembourg on 4/1/2021 and United Kingdom on 4/1/2021. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the LU102724 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
Claim 40 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 2, “wheein” should read “wherein”. 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 24-34 and 40-42 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 24 is amended to recite “in which the or each sensor” which renders the limitation unclear because there are two interpretations of the incorrect phrasing, rendering the claim indefinite for failing to distinctly claim the subject matter. For example the limitation could mean in which the at least one sensor or each sensor is configured to distinguish between at least three conditions; or the limitation could only mean in which each sensor is configured to distinguish between at least three conditions. As Applicant argues in the Remarks, having each sensor distinguish between the three conditions is a crucial distinction from the at least one sensor, in total, making the distinction. Therefore, the incorrect language in the limitation amounts to more than a mere typographical error and amounts to being indefinite. Claims 25-34 and 40-42 are also rejected under 35 USC 112(b) by virtue of their dependency on claim 25.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 24-26, 28-31, 34-35, 38 and 40-42 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Baek et al. (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2022/0322884).
Regarding claim 24, Baek et al. discloses a kitchen appliance (title) comprising a body (reference #30) to which one or more attachments may be fitted (reference #10), the body comprising at least one sensor, in which the or each sensor is configured to distinguish between at least three conditions relating to a detectable element associated with an attachment (reference #39; [0099]-[0100]; [0117]-[0119]) (3 conditions: (1) container mounted; (2) container not mounted; (3) type of container)) (it is noted that the limitation uses the term “configured” which only requires the sensor be capable of distinguishing between conditions, and therefore does not require the structural limitation of the detectable element), and a controller configured to identify a parameter relating to the attachment in dependence upon the sensed condition ([0118]; [0198]; [0208]).
Regarding claim 25, Baek et al. discloses wherein the conditions comprise: the absence of a detectable element, and the presence of a detectable element having either a first or a second state (reference #39; [0099]-[0100]; [0117] (3 conditions: (1) container mounted; (2) container not mounted; (3) type/state of container)). It is noted that “the conditions” are not positive structural limitations of the claims, but rather an intended use of the at least one sensor (see claim 24 that recites “at least one sensor configured to distinguish between at least three conditions), and as such, any limitation that attempts to further limit the conditions is also not a positive structural limitation required to be disclosed by the apparatus claims. See MPEP § 2114 and 2115.
Regarding claim 26, as stated above in the rejection to claims 24 and 25, the detectable element is not positively recited structures of the claims, and therefore the limitations as recited in claim 26 which further limit the detectable element and the first or second states are not positive structural limitations that are part of the claim. However, in order to further prosecution, Baek et al. discloses wherein the detectable element comprises a magnet (reference #104), and the first and second states comprise each polarity of a magnetic field of the magnet respectively (figures 20 and 21, polarity of reference #104 detected).
Regarding claim 28, Baek et al. discloses wherein the body comprises a motor unit (figure 3, reference #50 and 51), wherein the controller is configured to permit or prevent actuation of the motor unit in dependence on the sensed condition of the detectable element ([0198]); and wherein the attachment comprises a food processing tool (figure 1, reference #10 and 14).
Regarding claim 29, Baek et al. discloses wherein the parameter relating to the attachment comprises at least one of: the absence of an attachment, the identity of the attachment, a condition of the attachment, and a working parameter of the attachment ([0100]; [0103]; [0117]; [0175]; [0198]; [0208]).
Regarding claim 30, Baek et al. discloses wherein, in dependence upon the sensed condition, the sensor transmits a ternary code to the controller ([0118]; [0198]; [0208]).
Regarding claim 31, Baek et al. discloses wherein the body comprises a plurality of sensors, each configured to distinguish between at least three conditions relating to a detectable element associated with an attachment (figures 15, 17, 20, 21, reference #39; [0099]-[0100]; [0103]; [0117]-[0119]; [0175]; [0208]).
Regarding claim 34, Baek et al. discloses wherein the sensor is provided adjacent an engagement region of the body, preferably adjacent an edge of the engagement region, optionally wherein the sensor is provided adjacent a sidewall of the engagement region (figure 9, reference #39).
Regarding claim 35, Baek et al. discloses an attachment for a kitchen appliance (reference #10 and 10’), the attachment having an engagement region for fitting to an appliance body in at least two orientations (reference #103), and comprising a magnet at or adjacent the engagement region configured to present one of a north pole or a south pole to a sensor of the appliance body (figures 6, 7, 8, 19, 20, 21, reference #104 (known that magnets have a north and south pole).
Regarding claim 38, Baek et al. discloses an adaptor for a kitchen appliance (reference #10 and 10’) (it is noted that no structure has been recited beyond the basic nomenclature “adaptor”), wherein the adaptor is configured to engage with an attachment (figures 5 and 6, reference #14 and 20) (it is noted that no structure has been recited beyond the basic nomenclature “attachment”) and a body of the kitchen appliance (figure 1-3, reference #30); and comprises at least one aperture configured to receive a magnet (figure 6, reference #104), optionally wherein the presence and polarity and/or absence of the magnet in the aperture forms a ternary code that identifies a parameter relating to the adaptor ([0100]; [0103]; [0117]; [0118]; [0175]; [0198]; [0208] (it is noted that the term “optionally” means this limitation is not required to be disclosed by the reference)).
Regarding claim 40, Baek et al. discloses wherein the attachment (reference #10 and 10’) comprises the at least one detectable element configured for sensing by the at least one sensor of the body (reference #104).
Regarding claim 41, Baek et al. discloses wherein the attachment has an engagement region for fitting to an appliance body in at least two orientations (reference #103), and comprising a magnet at or adjacent the engagement region configured to present one of a north pole or a south pole to the sensor of the appliance body (figures 6, 7, 8, 19, 20, 21, reference #104 (known that magnets have a north and south pole).
Regarding claim 42, Baek et al. discloses further comprising an adaptor (container coupling portion 103), wherein the adaptor is configured to engage with the attachment and the body of the kitchen appliance (reference #103 (adaptor) engages bottom of attachment (reference #10/10’) and body at reference #301); and comprises at least one aperture configured to receive a magnet (figure 6, reference #104), optionally wherein the presence and polarity and/or absence of the magnet in the aperture forms a ternary code that identifies a parameter relating to the adaptor ([0100]; [0103]; [0117]; [0118]; [0175]; [0198]; [0208] (it is noted that the term “optionally” means this limitation is not required to be disclosed by the reference)); and wherein the adaptor is engaged with the attachment and the body (see figures 6-8 and 19, reference #103 (adaptor) engages bottom of attachment (reference #10/10’) and body at reference #301); and wherein the detectable element comprises a magnet provided in the adaptor aperture (figure 6, reference #104).
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) 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baek et al. in view Ciepiel et al. (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2019/0001288).
Regarding claim 27, Baek et al. discloses all the limitation as set forth above. While Baek et al. further discloses wherein the sensor is a hall sensor (reference #39; [0025]; [0103]), Baek et al. does not specifically state the hall sensor is an omnipolar hall sensor. Ciepiel et al. teaches another blender (abstract) comprising a omnipolar sensor ([0054]). Since the instant specification is silent to unexpected result, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to modify the hall sensor of Baek et al. to be an omnipolar sensor, as taught by Ciepiel et al., because selecting one of known designs for a sensor would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at before the time of filing and because said sensor being an omnipolar hall sensor would operate equally well as the one disclosed by Baek et al.
Claim(s) 32, 33 and 36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baek et al. in view of Dickson, Jr. et al. (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2015/0282671); Wulf et al. (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2015/0069157) and Masip et al. (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2002/0012288).
Regarding claim 32, Baek et al. discloses wherein the body is configured for engagement with the attachment in at least two orientations (figures 19-21, reference #103, 301 and 325; [0100]-[0103]); however, does not explicitly disclose wherein an engagement region of the body has one of a substantially triangular shape, a rounded triangular shape, and a substantially equilateral triangular shape. It is well known in the art that the engagement region can have a variety of shapes of configurations, including square, circular, triangular, polygonal, etc. (as evidenced by Dickson, Jr. et al. reference #107, or Wulf et al. reference #74, [0066], or Masip et al., figure 1, reference #11 and 17, [0018]). The change in configuration of shape of a device is obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration is significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to modify the engagement region of Baek et al. to include a variety of engagement shapes, as taught by Dickson, Jr. et al, Wulf et al. and Masip et al. An ordinary skilled artisan at the time of the invention would have been motivated to do the foregoing in order to increase the fictional and positive engagement with the base body with minimal possibility of rotation as well as simplify the manufacturing process.
Regarding claim 33, Baek et al. in view of Dickson, Jr. et al., Wulf et al. and Masip et al. disclose all the limitations as set forth above. Baek as modified further discloses wherein the body comprises two sensors, each configured to distinguish between at least three conditions relating to a detectable element associated with an attachment (figures 15, 17, 20, 21, reference #39; [0099]-[0100]; [0103]; [0117]-[0119]; [0175]; [0208]), each sensor being provided adjacent a distinct side of the triangular engagement region (as modified above to be triangular) (figure 9, reference #39).
Regarding claim 36, Baek et al discloses all the limitations as set forth above, however, does not explicitly disclose wherein an engagement region of the body has one of a substantially triangular shape, a rounded triangular shape, and a substantially equilateral triangular shape. It is well known in the art that the engagement region can have a variety of shapes of configurations, including square, circular, triangular, polygonal, etc. (as evidenced by Dickson, Jr. et al. reference #107, or Wulf et al. reference #74, [0066], or Masip et al., figure 1, reference #11 and 17, [0018]). The change in configuration of shape of a device is obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration is significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to modify the engagement region of Baek et al. to include a variety of engagement shapes, as taught by Dickson, Jr. et al, Wulf et al. and Masip et al. An ordinary skilled artisan at the time of the invention would have been motivated to do the foregoing in order to increase the fictional and positive engagement with the base body with minimal possibility of rotation as well as simplify the manufacturing process.
Claim(s) 37 and 39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baek et al. in view of Kovacic et al. (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2009/0084274).
Regarding claim 37, Baek et al. discloses all the limitations as set forth above. The reference further discloses wherein the attachment is configured for engagement with an accessory (figures 1-5, reference #20). However, the reference does not explicitly disclose a biased member arranged to bias the magnet away from the sensor of the appliance body if the accessory is not engaged with the attachment, wherein the biased member comprises a rod provided in a handle of the attachment; wherein the magnet is engaged with the rod and/or wherein the rod is provided on a rail.
Kovacic et al. teaches another kitchen appliance (title). The reference teaches wherein the attachment is configured for engagement with an accessory (figure 2, reference #6), and further comprises a biased member arranged to bias the magnet away from the sensor of the appliance body if the accessory is not engaged with the attachment (figure 3, reference #9 and 14; [0030]; [0032]), and wherein the biased member comprises a rod provided in a handle of the attachment (figure 3, reference #9); and wherein the magnet is engaged with the rod and/or wherein the rod is provided on a rail (figure 3, reference #9, 10 and 14).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to provide the biased member and activation rod with first magnet of Kovacic et al. in the attachment of Baek et al. One of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect such a combination to be suitable given that both references teach kitchen appliances. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to provide a biased member and activation rod with first magnet because it enhances the safety of the reliability of the appliance by ensuring the appliance is properly assembled (Kovacio et al. [0030]; [0032]).
Regarding claim 39, Baek et al. discloses all the limitations as set forth above. However, the reference does not explicitly disclose wherein the aperture comprises a biased member.
Kovacic et al. teaches another kitchen appliance (title). The reference teaches wherein the aperture comprises a biased member arranged to bias the magnet in the aperture away from the body if the attachment is not engaged with the adaptor (figure 3, reference #9 and 14; [0030]; [0032]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to provide the biased member with first magnet of Kovacic et al. in the adaptor of Baek et al. One of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect such a combination to be suitable given that both references teach kitchen appliances. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to provide a biased member with first magnet because it enhances the safety of the reliability of the appliance by ensuring the appliance is properly assembled (Kovacio et al. [0030]; [0032]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/9/2026 with respect to the 35 U.S.C. §102 rejection by Baeck have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues Baeck fails to disclose each individual sensor is configured to distinguish between at least three conditions because Beck teaches a plurality of sensors, each of which can only sense the presence or absence of a detectable element. Examiner finds this argument unpersuasive. The detection device 39 of Baeck is the sensor. As explained in paragraphs [0099]-[0100] and [0117]-[0119] and, “the detection device 39” (singular) “may detect the detection member 104 to determine whether the other container 10’ is mounted, and may also identify the other mounted container 10’”; and “each of these containers may be provided with the detection member 104 at a different location to distinguish them by the detection device 30.” In each explanation, “detection device 39” is referred to in the singular, meaning each detection device 39 is configured to distinguish the three conditions. These three conditions are (1) the presence of the container, (2) the absence of the container; and (3) the type of container. The single sensor (39) detects the type of container by sensing the distance away detection member 104 is. Therefore, sensor 39: (1) detects detection member 104 is present (i.e. a container is present); (2) doesn’t sense any detection member 104 (i.e. no container present); (3) detects the distance away a detection member 104 is (i.e. the type of container). Therefore Beck discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
It is noted that Applicant has not addressed independent claim 35, and has not specifically pointed out how the language of the claim patentably distinguishes it from the references.
Regarding claim 38, Applicant’s Remarks state that independent claim 38 has been amended to include the presences and polarity and/or absence of the magnet in the aperture forms a ternary code that identifies a parameter relating to the adaptor. Examiner finds this argument unpersuasive. Claim 38 has not been amended. Furthermore, it previously recited this limitation as an “optional” limitation, meaning this limitation is not required to be disclosed by the prior art. Furthermore, the rejection previously stated that Baek discloses that limitation in paragraphs [0100]; [0103]; [0117]; [0118]; [0175]; [0198]; [0208]; and Applicant has not addressed the prior art reference and has not specifically pointed out how the language of the limitation patentably distinguishes it from the reference.
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 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 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
Prosecution Insights