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 3 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 2 after “components includes” insert “a triggering mechanism to turn on an operation of the apparatus and”.
In line 4 after “container” delete “and comprises a triggering mechanism to turn on an operation of the apparatus”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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 1 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gross et al. (US 2018/0014695 A1) in view of Somers (US 1,994,114 A) and Kodama et al. (US 2018/0140128 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Gross et al. teaches a device for producing nut milk (abstract) comprising a container 616, a mixing container 609 comprising mesh 614 disposed inside the container and configured and arranged to receive a food article, blade assembly 606 disposed inside the mesh filter and configured and arranged to fragment the food article to produce a liquid, and a sprout 615 for removing the liquid from the container, where the filter is configured and arranged to capture the fragmented food article (figure 6; paragraphs 29-30 and 32-33).
Gross et al. does not teach a vacuum assembly fluidically coupled to the container and configured and arranged to remove the liquid from the container, the sprout fluidically coupled to the vacuum assembly for removing the liquid from the container, wherein the vacuum assembly comprises a silicone tube fluidically connecting the container to the sprout, and the vacuum assembly is configured and arranged to suction the liquid produced from the fragmentation of the food article and transport the liquid through the silicone tube to the sprout.
Somers teaches a fruit juice extractor (page 1 left column lines 1-3) comprising a cup 1 (i.e., container) for removing juice from a fruit, a pipe 2 and sleeve 3 (i.e., tubes) for transporting the juice, and a vacuum chamber assembly 4 having aperture 5 through which juice from cup 1 is received (figure 1; page 1 left column lines 38-45), where “practically all of the juice will be sucked from the fruit and will pass therefrom through the conduit 41 (i.e., sprout) to any suitable receptacle” (page 2 left column lines 40-46). Thus, the vacuum assembly 4 is construed to be configured and arranged to remove liquid from the container 1, where the sprout, vacuum assembly, and container are fluidically coupled. The reference teaches that applying a vacuum facilitates extraction of liquids from the fruit while the fruit solids are retained by strainer 6 (page 2 left column lines 46-49).
Kodama et al. teaches a beverage device (paragraph 1) comprising a liquid supply pipe made from materials suitable for use with foods, including silicone (paragraph 50).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Gross et al. to include a vacuum assembly fluidically connecting the container and sprout using a silicone tube since the prior art recognizes such structures for extracting liquid expressed from solid food, since silicone tubes are recognized by the art as suitable for transporting edible liquids, and to ensure maximum removal of the milk from the comminuted nuts, thereby providing more efficient extraction and minimizing waste.
Regarding claim 8, Gross et al. teaches the mesh filter comprises mesh openings of 0.149 mm (paragraph 30).
Claims 2 and 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gross et al. in view of Somers and Kodama et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chen (US 6,065,861 A) and Lee (US 2018/0098666 A1), hereon referred to as “Lee ‘666”.
Regarding claim 2, Gross et al. teaches a removable lid 613 (paragraph 32), but does not teach the lid comprising a plurality of lid components that are configured and arranged to interlock to provide a liquid seal to the container.
Chen teaches a blender (abstract) comprising container 3, filter 36, and a cover 37, where the cover comprises hole 371 and cap 38 for covering the hole, and the cap is removed in order to add articles into filter 36 for blending (figures 3b and 4; column 2 lines 53-62). The combination of cover 37 with cap 38 is construed to be a “lid assembly”, where the cover and cap are “plurality of lid components…arranged to interlock”.
Lee ‘666 teaches a blender (abstract) comprising container 10 and cover 50 comprising a plurality of structures located around the periphery to abut against and inside wall of the container to form an airtight seal (figure 1; paragraph 27), where the cover comprises cover body 51 and sealing plug 53 (figure 9), where the sealing plug 53 is locked into the cover body 51 with sealing device 533 to achieve “an airtight effect” (figures 8 and 12-13; paragraph 43). The plug 53 includes an air valve 535 in order to allow a separate vacuum pump 700 to be mounted to the plug of the cover to remove air from the container (paragraph 45). The reference suggests to one of ordinary skill in the art that a lid system comprising a plurality of lid components can be configured such that the components each form airtight seals.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Gross et al. such that the removable lid comprises a plurality of lid components configured and arranged to interlock and provide a liquid seal since the prior art acknowledges blender lids comprising a plurality of components that facilitate loading the blender without removing the entire lid, and that the components of a lid assembly can all be made to form airtight seals, and therefore to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results of ensuring vacuum pressure is maintained throughout processing, thus facilitating liquid extraction as explained for claim 1, and in order to minimize the open area through which contaminants can enter.
Regarding claim 5, Lee ‘666 as applied to claim 2 teaches sealing device 533 is located between adjacent lid components 51 and 53, and made of rubber or silicone material to obtain the airtight effect (figures 12-13; paragraphs 38 and 42-43).
It is noted that the limitation “at least a portion of the container” does not recite or otherwise indicate any structure associated with “the container”. Therefore, the limitation is given its broadest reasonable interpretation to be any portion of the container, including the inner sides of the container walls contacted by the lid assembly. Since Lee ‘666 teaches both lid components 51 and 53 form an airtight seal with the container 10 as stated above, the sealing device is construed to be a type of “gasket configured to interlock to…provide a liquid seal to at least a portion of the container.”
Regarding claims 6-7, the combination applied to claims 2 and 5 does not teach the gasket configured to provide a liquid seal between the mesh filter, the removable lid assembly, and at least the portion of the container.
Chen shows lid components 37-38 engage with filter 36 at the upper portion thereof (figure 4).
Lee ‘666 teaches that it is desirable to form airtight seals between lid components as stated for claim 5.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Gross et al. such that the gasket is configured to provide a liquid seal between the filter, at least the portion of the container, and the removable lid assembly for the same reasons stated for claim 2, and to prevent against any leaks between the claimed structures.
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gross et al. in view of Somers, Kodama et al., Chen, and Lee ‘666 as applied to claims 1-2 above, and further in view of Ivarsson et al. (US 2018/0206677 A1) and Kolar et al. (US 2018/0020875 A1).
Regarding claim 3, the combination applied to claim 2 does not teach the plurality of lid components includes a triggering mechanism to turn on an operation of the apparatus and a measuring cup having a handle, the handle configured and arranged to be maneuverable to seal the removable lid assembly against at least a portion of the container.
Ivarsson et al. teaches a blender (abstract) comprising a lid assembly 34 comprising a plurality of lid components 34-36 (figure 4), where component 36 is a measuring cup having a handle (figures 1A-B; paragraph 55). The handle is configured and arranged to be maneuverable to seal the lid assembly against the container.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Gross et al. such that the plurality of lid components includes a measuring cup having the claimed features since the prior art recognizes said features for blender lid assemblies, since there is no evidence of criticality or unexpected results associated with the claimed feature, to facilitate measuring and transporting ingredients as is known in the art, and to provide a storage area within the apparatus itself for user convenience and to minimize risk of misplacing the measuring cup.
Kolar et al. teaches a blending apparatus (abstract) comprising lid 320 having magnets 312 which engage with lid switches 314, 316 (figure 3; paragraph 73) in order to provide the signal that allows the motor to be powdered (paragraphs 14 and 80). The system prevents the blades from rotating when the lid is removed from the device (paragraph 4), where such “interlock” systems are known (paragraphs 5-6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Gross et al. such that the lid includes a triggering mechanism to turn on an operation of the apparatus since the prior art teaches “interlock” systems are known, and to prevent operation of the blades when the lid is removed from the container, thereby enhancing user safety.
Regarding claim 4, the combination applied to claim 3 teaches a sensor-based switch for the triggering mechanism.
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gross et al. in view of Somers and Kodama et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Herren (US 2011/0226140 A1).
Regarding claims 9-10, Gross et al. does not teach the blade assembly comprises a plurality of single blades stackable in layers to form an integrated blade having multiple blade components, wherein each of the plurality of single blades comprises a mounting hole through which each single blade is mounted on a blade shaft to form the integrated blade assembly.
Herren teaches a food processor (abstract) comprising cutting unit (blade assembly) 60 comprising single blades 63 and 64 stackable in layers to form an integrated blade having multiple blade components 61 and 62 (figures 1a and 2a; paragraphs 97-98). The structure of the blade assembly allows the blades to be easily changed, thereby allowing a variety of blade types for different applications (paragraph 120).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Gross et al. to comprise a plurality of single blades having the claimed features since the prior art recognizes such features for food cutting devices, in order to allow the blades to be changed based on the type of food being processed, and to facilitate cleaning/maintenance.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gross et al. in view of Somers and Kodama et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bonaccorso et al. (US 2021/0244224 A1).
Regarding claim 12, the limitation “and/or” is interpreted to recite alternatives. For the sake of examination, the alternative “mesh filter…removable” is chosen.
Gross et al. does not teach the mesh filter and/or the blade assembly are removable.
Bonaccorso et al. teaches a food preparation apparatus from removing liquids from a food (abstract) comprising a sieve 40 that is removable from drum 20 to facilitate cleaning (figure 1; paragraphs 79 and 94-95).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Gross et al. such that the filter is removable since the prior art recognizes the feature for similar food processing devices, and in order to facilitate cleaning of the device and removal of solids from the filter, see also MPEP 2144.04 V.C.
Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gross et al. in view of Somers and Kodama et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hoare et al. (US 2016/0296899 A1).
Regarding claims 13-14, Gross et al. does not teach a graphic user interface (GUI) configured to receive a user input for selecting a recipe, where the recipe includes at least one of a selection of the claimed alternatives. For the sake of examination, the alternatives “amount of the food article” and “network” are chosen.
Hoare et al. teaches a blender apparatus (abstract) comprising a GUI with a touch screen for user input (figures 15 and 18; paragraph 217). The apparatus can communicate with base server device 920 through networks in order to recall information such as software updates and recipes (paragraphs 197-198), where the device communicates to the user suggestions on recipe portioning and blend time (paragraphs 202 and 213).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Gross et al. to be a GUI configured to receive user input for food article amount and to display a plurality of recipes downloadable from an external source as claimed since the prior art recognizes such features for a blender-type apparatus, to minimize risk of user error, since there is no evidence of criticality or unexpected results associated with the claimed features, and therefore to similarly facilitate communication to, and input from, the user regarding recipe suggestions, information, and selection.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered, but the amendments necessitated new grounds of rejection. Lee is no longer relied upon and is replaced by Gross et al. The reference is relied on to teach a food processing device for separating liquids from comminuted nuts and modified by Somers to facilitate liquid removal by a vacuum in fluid connection to the extraction container and sprout. Kodama et al. is relied on to teach a silicone tube for transferring liquids.
Likewise, the amendment to claim 3 removing the term “optionally” necessitated new grounds of rejection for claims 3 and 4. Kolar et al. is relied on to teach a sensor-based switch to turn on an operation of the device.
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 BRYAN KIM whose telephone number is (571)270-0338. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30-6.
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, Erik Kashnikow can be reached at (571)-270-3475. 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.
/B.K/Examiner, Art Unit 1792
/ERIK KASHNIKOW/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1792
Prosecution Insights