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 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.
Claim(s) 9-11 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Boyce (U.S. Patent No. 4,487,509).
Regarding claim 9, Boyce discloses an appliance (title), comprising:
a base unit (figures 1-4, support base 18) having a housing (figures 1-4, upper end 70 and lower end 72), with an upwardly opening upper cavity (figures 2-4, receptacle 78) with a drive connection positioned therein (figures 2-4, drive connector 112), wherein the housing further includes a battery-receiving cavity (figures 2-4, component space 82);
a motor disposed within the housing of the base unit (figures 3 and 4, motor 108);
a blender jar (figures 1 and 2, container 12) having an upper collar (figures 1 and 2, upper end 22 with threaded portion 30) and an interior cavity (figures 1 and 2; internal area of container 12 with opening 26);
a lid assembly (figures 1, 3, 6 and 7, cap 14) having first and second collars disposed on opposite sides of a divider (figure 2, cap wall 42 portion above divider gasket 56 and cap base 38 below divider gasket 56), wherein the first collar surrounds a drive connecting member on a first side of the divider and is removable coupled to the upper cavity of the base unit (figures 2 and 7, mixer connector 58; column 4, lines 34-53), and further wherein the second collar surrounds a blade assembly on a second side of the divider and is removably coupled to the upper collar of the blender jar (figure 2, mixer 16 with blades 50 surrounded by cap wall 42 and connects to threaded portion 30 of blender 12; column 2, lines 39-48), and further wherein the drive connecting member engages the drive connection of the base unit when the lid assembly is coupled to the upwardly opening upper cavity of the base unit at the first collar thereof (column 4, lines 34-53); and
a battery removably received within the battery-receiving cavity for powering the motor of the base unit (figures 2 and 4, batteries 118 removable received in component space 82; column 5, lines 1-8).
Regarding claim 10, Boyce discloses wherein the first collar includes at least one connecting member provided on an outer surface thereof (see figure 7, cap base 38 is corrugated with ridges and grooves on outer surface for connecting/engaging with the base).
Regarding claim 11, Boyce discloses wherein the upper cavity of the base unit includes at least one alignment tab provided therein to releasably receive the at least one connecting member (figure 3, ledge 79; column 3, lines 35-49).
Regarding claim 16, Boyce discloses an appliance (title), comprising:
a base unit (figures 1-4, support base 18) having a housing (figures 1-4, upper end 70 and lower end 72), with an upwardly opening upper cavity (figures 2-4, receptacle 78) with a drive connection positioned therein (figures 2-4, drive connector 112), wherein the housing further includes a battery-receiving cavity (figures 2-4, component space 82);
a motor disposed within the housing of the base unit (figures 3 and 4, motor 108);
a blender jar (figures 1 and 2, container 12) having an upper collar (figures 1 and 2, upper end 22 with threaded portion 30) and an interior cavity (figures 1 and 2; internal area of container 12 with opening 26);
a lid assembly (figures 1, 3, 6 and 7, cap 14) having first and second collars disposed on opposite sides of a divider (figure 2, cap wall 42 portion above divider gasket 56 and cap base 38 below divider gasket 56), wherein the first collar surrounds a drive connecting member on a first side of the divider and is configured to be coupled to the upper cavity of the base unit (figures 2 and 7, mixer connector 58; column 4, lines 34-53), and further wherein the second collar surrounds a blade assembly on a second side of the divider and is configured to be coupled to the upper collar of the blender jar (figure 2, mixer 16 with blades 50 surrounded by cap wall 42 and connects to threaded portion 30 of blender 12; column 2, lines 39-48); and
a battery removably received within the battery-receiving cavity for powering the motor of the base unit (figures 2 and 4, batteries 118 removable received in component space 82; column 5, lines 1-8).
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) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boyce in view of Sapire et al. (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2021/0354100).
Regarding claim 1, Boyce discloses an appliance (title), comprising:
a base unit (figures 1-4, support base 18) having a housing (figures 1-4, upper end 70 and lower end 72), with an upwardly opening upper cavity (figures 2-4, receptacle 78) with a drive connection positioned therein (figures 2-4, drive connector 112), wherein the housing further includes a battery-receiving cavity (figures 2-4, component space 82);
a motor disposed within the housing of the base unit (figures 3 and 4, motor 108);
a blender jar (figures 1 and 2, container 12) having an upper collar (figures 1 and 2, upper end 22 with threaded portion 30) and an interior cavity (figures 1 and 2; internal area of container 12 with opening 26);
a first lid assembly removeably coupled to the upper collar of the blender jar and the upwardly opening upper cavity of the base unit (figures 1, 3, 6 and 7, cap 14), wherein the first lid assembly includes a drive connecting member disposed on a first side thereof (figures 2 and 7, mixer connector 58), and a blade assembly disposed on a second side thereof (figure 2, mixer 16 with blades 50), and further wherein the drive connecting member engages the drive connection of the base unit when the first lid assembly is coupled to the upwardly opening upper cavity of the base unit (column 4, lines 34-53); and
a battery removably received within the battery-receiving cavity for powering the motor of the base unit (figures 2 and 4, batteries 118 removable received in component space 82; column 5, lines 1-8).
While Boyce further discloses wherein the first lid assembly includes at least one connecting member disposed on the first side thereof (see figure 7, cap base 38 is corrugated with ridges and grooves on outer surface for connecting/engaging with the base), and further wherein the upwardly opening upper cavity of the base unit includes at least one alignment tab provided therein to releasably receive the at least one connecting member (figure 3, ledge 79; column 3, lines 35-49), to the extent it does not secure the blender jar to the base unit, it is well known in the art that there are many types, shapes and configurations of connecting type members and alignment type tabs for securing the blender jar to the base unit, as evidenced by Sapire et al. (figure 3 bayonet connectors 120 and locking protrusions 122; [0043]-[0044]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to modify the connecting member and alignment tab of Boyce to include one of a variety of known connecting shapes and known designs, as taught by Sapire or. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do the foregoing because the bayonet connectors and locking protrusions properly align and engage the blade assembly around the base assembly such that the connection between the blender base assembly and the blade assembly may be secure and stable (Sapire et al. [0044]) and because selecting one of known designs for an alignment connection would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boyce in view of Sapire et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bennett (U.S. Patent No. 4,887,909).
Regarding claim 2, Boyce discloses all the limitations as set forth above; however does not explicitly disclose wherein the battery is a 12V battery. It is well known in the art before the time of filing that 12V batteries are used to power kitchen appliances, as evidenced by Bennett (column 1, lines 9-13); and one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing would have modified the battery of Boyce to be a 12V battery in order to provide the necessary power to operate the appliance for efficient mixing
Claim(s) 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boyce in view of Dickson, Jr. et al. (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2017/0208998).
To the extent the threads (figure 3, threads 46) of Boyce do not read on the ramps as recited in claims 12 and 14, Dickson, Jr. et al. teaches another blending apparatus (title). Dickson, Jr. et al. teaches wherein the second side of the divider (figures 3A-3C, top surface 158; figures 7A-7C; figures 31A-31C, top of adapter 3100; figures 31A-32C, top of adaptor 3200) includes a plurality of ramps outwardly extending therefrom (figures 3A-3C, wall portions 166; figures 7A-7C, shelf portions 756; figures 31A-31C, helical baffles 3102; figures 32A-32C, helical baffles 3202), and further wherein each ramp includes an angled upper surface that is disposed in a curved configuration (figures 3A-3C, see top of wall portions 166 that is curved; figure 7A-7C, shelf portions 756; figures 31A-31C, helical baffles 3102; figures 32A-32C, helical baffles 3202; [0087]; [0109]); and the curved configuration of each ramp of the plurality of ramps is aligned with the rotational path (figures 3A-3C, see top of wall portions 166 that is curved; figure 7A-7C, shelf portions 756; figures 31A-31C, helical baffles 3102; figures 32A-32C, helical baffles 3202; [0087]; [0109]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to provide the curved ramps of Dickson Jr. et al. on the second side of the divider of Boyce because material deflected from the blending blade assembly in a lateral and radially outward direction cannot directly impact the inner surface of the disposable container unless it passes in a circumferential direction through the baffles as well to direct material away from the wall of the container and redirect it back into engagement with a blending blade in the container to reduce strain on the container and increase the speed and efficiency of mixing (Dickson, Jr. et al. [0087]; [0109]).
Regarding claim 13, Boyce as modified by Dickson, Jr. further discloses wherein the blade assembly includes a plurality of blades outwardly extending from a baseplate (figures 1 and 3, blades 50), wherein one or more blades of the plurality of blades includes a distal end that extends towards the second side of the divider for rotation along a rotational path (figures 3, blades 50).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boyce in view of Bennett (U.S. Patent No. 4,887,909).
Regarding claim 15, Boyce discloses all the limitations as set forth above; however does not explicitly disclose wherein the battery is a 12V battery. It is well known in the art before the time of filing that 12V batteries are used to power kitchen appliances, as evidenced by Bennett (column 1, lines 9-13); and one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing would have modified the battery of Boyce to be a 12V battery in order to provide the necessary power to operate the appliance for efficient mixing.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/8/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the ledge 79 of Boyce cannot read on the alignment tab because the ledge 79 is an axial stop that limits downward movement and spacingly supports the cap about the receptacle lower end. Examiner finds this argument unpersuasive. The limitation only requires the alignment tab receive a connecting member of the first collar. As Applicant points out, the specification of Boyce specifically states that the ledge 79 is adapted to engage a portion of the cap 14…. There is nothing in the limitation that specifies that type of movement that is limited. Therefore, ledge 79 continues to read on claim 11. With respect to claim 1, the argument is moot in view of Sapire et al. which teaches the alignment tab securing the connection member, as explained above in the 103 rejection of claim 1.
Applicant argues Boyce fails to disclose first and second collars disposed on opposite sides of a divider because Boyce describes a cap having a single cap wall 42 and gasket 56 is used to prevent fluid leakage not as a divider. Examiner finds this argument unpersuasive. It doesn’t matter the stated purpose of the gasket 56 is different, it still divides the cap 14 into a top and bottom section, each having a collar, as shown in figures 3, 6 and 7. See marked up figures below. There is a divider separating wall 42 into a first and second collar, so there a collar on each side of the divider as seen in figures 3, 6 and 7.
PNG
media_image1.png
394
902
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
734
518
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 12-14 and the ramps, Applicant argues the threads of Boyce are not ramps. While Examiner disagrees, because a thread has the same structure as the ramp recited in claims 12 and 14, even if it is used for a different purpose, Examiner admits there is only a single thread/ramp disclosed by Boyce. Applicant further argues Dickson, Jr. fails to teach the ramps of claims 12 and 14 because Dickson, Jr. has the ramps on a blending adapter and not outwardly from a second side of a divider lid assembly. Examiner finds this argument unpersuasive. Dickson, Jr. teaches a similar cap/lid assembly with a second side coupled to the container and having the blade and curved ramps (see figures 1 and 4, adapter 104 couples with cup 106, with second side having ramps 166, and blade 170, and first side having connector 172 to motor drive 110). Dickson, Jr discloses the exact shape and location of the ramps as recited in claims 12 and 14 (see all figures recited in 103 rejection above). Applicant further argues the reason to combine has no rational connection to Boyce because Dickson, Jr. uses a disposable cup. This is not found persuasive. First, strain on a cup can be directed to a disposable or otherwise reusable cup. Second, that was not the only motivation; the ramps also direct the material to the blender to increase the speed and efficiency of mixing (Dickson, Jr. [0087]).
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 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
