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 Interpretation
Claim 20 recites “wherein the at least one first notch is misaligned with the at least one latch when the food processing assembly is in the storage configuration”.
The term “misaligned” does not appear to be used in the specification. As best understood, this is interpreted to mean that the at least one first notch and the latch do not overlap.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “310” has been used to designate both the lever and the latch in Figure 5. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
a. In paragraph 3, line 5, "based" should be "base".
b. In paragraph 5, line 4, “based” should be “base”.
c. In paragraph 5, line 10, “in” should be “is”.
d. In paragraph 28, line 12, “processes” should be “processed”.
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 22 and 25-30 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 22 recites “a storage configuration” and it’s unclear if this is the same storage configuration previously recited in claim 16. The specification only appears to disclose one storage configuration. This could be changed to “the storage configuration”.
Claim 25 recites “of a cap of a food processing assembly supporting the base thereon” in lines 12-13. However, a cap and a food processing assembly are previously recited in the claims and it’s unclear if these are in reference to the same cap and food processing assembly. This could be changed to “of the [[a]] cap of the [[a]] food processing assembly; wherein the cap supports
Claims 26-30 are rejected by virtue of their dependence on claim 25.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 16, 18-21 and 23-24 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 and 9-12 of U.S. Patent No. 11,877,696 hereinafter “ ’696 ” in view of Gushwa et al. (US 20180213978 A1) and Clausen (US 20030038045).
Regarding claim 16, ‘696 claims a blade storage container (blade storage container, claim 1) comprising a base having at least one side wall defining a storage cavity (inner substrate, claim 11).
‘696 does not claim a lid removably coupled to the base; and a pillar disposed within the storage cavity of the base, the pillar supporting one or more food processor blades, wherein the at least one side wall defines: at least one second notch that forms an engagement point to secure the lid to the base.
However, Gushwa et al. discloses a blade storage container (container for holding a cutting tool of a food processor, Abstract) as shown below:
PNG
media_image1.png
569
909
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Gushwa et al. teaches a lid (top 422) removably coupled to the base; and a pillar (formed by tabs 434) disposed within the storage cavity of the base, the pillar supporting one or more food processor blades (para. [0072]) wherein the at least one side wall defines: at least one second notch (groove 456) that forms an engagement point to secure the lid to the base.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the claimed invention of ‘696 wherein the container comprises a lid removably coupled to the base; and a pillar disposed within the storage cavity of the base, the pillar supporting one or more food processor blades, wherein the at least one side wall defines: at least one second notch that forms an engagement point to secure the lid to the base.
The person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to include a lid in order to provide access to the storage container and protect the blades being stored, a pillar in order to support the blades, and a notch to secure the lid to the container.
In modifying the claimed invention of ‘696, the at least one second notch would be positioned such that it provides a clearance for components of a cap of a food processing assembly supporting the base thereon when the food processing assembly is in a storage configuration (as the inner and outer substrates, claim 11, are configured to receive the lower side wall when the lid/cap of the food processor is in the storage position: the second vertical orientation, claim 12, and the second notch would be positioned such that the lower side wall is received without interfering with the second notch and thus providing clearance for the lower side wall).
The above cited references do not disclose wherein the at least one side wall defines: at least one first notch that provides access to the storage cavity.
However, Clausen discloses a container (portable storage container, Abstract) which is analogous art in that it is at least reasonably pertinent to the problem of facilitating access to a storage cavity using a user’s hand and Clausen further teaches wherein the at least one side wall (wall 28) defines: at least one first notch (formed by edges 33, Fig. 1) that provides access to the storage cavity (para. [0022]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the claimed invention of ‘696 wherein the at least one side wall defines: at least one first notch that provides access to the storage cavity.
The person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to provide a notch to provide access to the storage cavity in order to facilitate removing blades.
Regarding claim 18, ‘696 does not claim wherein the lid further comprises at least one wing.
However, Clausen further teaches wherein a lid (portion 18 acts as a lid for portion 17, Fig. 1) comprises at least one wing (raised wall portion 52).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the claimed invention of ‘696 wherein the lid further comprises at least one wing that engages with the at least one first notch to form a barrier against external objects entering the blade storage container.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use a wing that engages with the first notch in order to keep contaminants out (Clausen, para. [0027]) thereby keeping the food processing blades clean.
Regarding claim 19, ‘696 does not claim wherein the lid further comprises at least one latch that selectively engages with the engagement point to secure the lid to the base.
However, Gushwa et al. further teaches wherein the lid comprises at least one latch (flange 450 with tab 452, Fig. 9) that selectively engages with the engagement point to secure the lid to the base (Fig. 9).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the claimed invention of ‘696 wherein the lid further comprises at least one latch that selectively engages with the engagement point to secure the lid to the base.
The person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to include a latch in order to more securely attach the lid.
Regarding claim 20, the combined teachings of the above-cited references for claim 19 disclose wherein the at least one first notch is misaligned with the at least one latch when the food processing assembly is in the storage configuration as the latch will be located in a region of the base having material to couple to the lid while the first notch has material removed (Clausen, bordered by edges 33, Fig. 1) and the two will not overlap when the lid is installed for storage.
Regarding claim 21, the combined teachings of the above-cited references for claim 19 disclose wherein the at least one latch selectively engages with the engagement point via a snapping mechanism (Gushwa et al., such as by flexing the flange 450 with the tab 452 into the groove 456).
Regarding claim 23, ‘696 does not claim a substantially circular shape.
However, Gushwa et al. further teaches wherein the base and the lid are substantially circular in shape. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the claimed invention of ‘696 wherein the base and the lid are substantially circular in shape. The person of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to select known shapes for a blade storage container. See In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Regarding claim 24, ‘696 claims wherein the at least one side wall comprises an interior wall and an exterior wall separated from the interior wall to define a space therebetween (claim 11).
Claim 17 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 9-12 of U.S. Patent No. 11,877,696 hereinafter “ ‘696 ” in view of Gushwa et al. (US 20180213978 A1) and Clausen (US 20030038045) as applied to claim 16 above and in further view of Yeh (US 20060266664).
Regarding claim 17, ‘696 does not claim wherein the lid further comprises a connector that slidably engages with the pillar.
However, Yeh discloses a container which is analogous art in that it is at least reasonably pertinent to the problem of securely storing items in a container (can, Abstract) and Yeh teaches wherein a lid (cover 2) further comprises a connector (slot 23) that slidably engages with a pillar (column 11).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the claimed invention of ‘696 wherein the lid further comprises a connector that slidably engages with the pillar.
The person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to include a connector to assist in aligning the lid with the pillar.
Claim 22 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 9-12 of U.S. Patent No. 11,877,696 hereinafter “ ‘696 “ in view of Gushwa et al. (US 20180213978 A1) and Clausen (US 20030038045) as applied to claim 16 above and in further view of Conti et al. (US 2010154658).
Regarding claim 22, ‘696 does not claim wherein the one or more food processor blades are sized to be stored around the pillar.
However, Conti et al. teaches food processor blades (dicing tool 40) having a central opening (portion 54) therefore it would have been obvious to modify the claimed invention of ‘696 wherein the one or more food processor blades are sized to be stored around the pillar when the food processing assembly is in a storage configuration in order to facilitate storage of food processor blades having a central opening. Further, Clausen also teaches supporting stored item around a pillar (comprising tines 24). Therefore, it would have been further obvious to modify the claimed invention of ‘696 by configuring the pillar such that blades are sized to be stored around the pillar in order to facilitate storage of blades having a central opening.
Claims 25-30 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 9-12 of U.S. Patent No. 11,877,696 hereinafter “ ‘696 “ in view of Gushwa et al. (US 20180213978 A1), Clausen (US 20030038045), Ivarsson et al. (US 20180206677) and Lee (US 5927183).
Regarding claims 25-30, ‘696 claims the subject matter of claims 25-30 except where underlined below:
PNG
media_image2.png
819
645
media_image2.png
Greyscale
‘696 does not claim a gasket between the upper side wall and lower side wall.
However, Ivarsson et al. discloses a food processor with a cap (lid 34) with a seal gasket (lid seal 35, Fig. 4) disposed under a flange of the cap (Fig. 4) or Lee discloses a lid (lid 20) with a seal gasket (packing 510) disposed above a side wall (wall 60). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the claimed invention of ‘696 wherein the cap comprises a gasket on or above a lower side wall such that the gasket is located between the lower side wall and the upper sidewall. The person of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to include a gasket in order to seal a bowl of a food processor.
‘696 does not claim a lid removably coupled to the base; and a pillar disposed within the storage cavity of the base, the pillar supporting one or more food processor blades, wherein the at least one side wall defines: at least one second notch that forms an engagement point to secure the lid to the base.
However, Gushwa et al. discloses a blade storage container (container for holding a cutting tool of a food processor, Abstract) as shown above for claim 16.
Gushwa et al. teaches a lid (top 422) removably coupled to the base; and a pillar (formed by tabs 434) disposed within the storage cavity of the base, the pillar supporting one or more food processor blades (para. [0072]) wherein the at least one side wall defines: at least one second notch (groove 456) that forms an engagement point to secure the lid to the base.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the claimed invention of ‘696 wherein the container comprises a lid removably coupled to the base; and a pillar disposed within the storage cavity of the base, the pillar supporting one or more food processor blades, wherein the at least one side wall defines: at least one second notch that forms an engagement point to secure the lid to the base.
The person ordinary skill would have been motivated to include a lid in order to provide access to the storage container and protect the blades being stored, a pillar in order to support the blades, and a notch to secure the lid to the container.
In modifying the claimed invention of ‘696, the at least one second notch would be positioned such that it provides a clearance for components of a cap of a food processing assembly supporting the base thereon when the food processing assembly is in a storage configuration (as the inner and outer substrates, claim 11, are configured to receive the lower side wall when the lid/cap of the food processor is in the storage position: the second vertical orientation, claim 12, and the second notch would be positioned such that the lower side wall is received without interfering with the second notch and thus providing clearance for the lower side wall).
The above cited references do not disclose wherein the at least one side wall defines: at least one first notch that provides access to the storage cavity.
However, Clausen discloses a container (portable storage container, Abstract) which is analogous art in that it is at least reasonably pertinent to the problem of facilitating access to a storage cavity using a user’s hand and Clausen further teaches wherein the at least one side wall (wall 28) defines: at least one first notch (formed by edges 33, Fig. 1) that provides access to the storage cavity (para. [0022]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the claimed invention of ‘696 wherein the at least one side wall defines: at least one first notch that provides access to the storage cavity.
The person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to provide a notch to provide access to the storage cavity in order to facilitate removing blades.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16-21 and 23-24 would be allowable if a terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) was filed as discussed above in the Double Patenting section. Claims 22 and 25-30 would be allowable if a terminal disclaimer is filed and the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) were resolved.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art of record discloses blade storage containers integrated with a lid of a food processor (see Jariga, US 20020047060) as well as blade storage containers having latches, pillars and notches.
However, the prior art of record did not reasonably disclose, teach or otherwise suggest a blade storage container or a food processor with a blade storage container where the blade storage container has a base, a lid, a sidewall with two notches including a notch that forms an engagement point to secure the lid and which provides for clearance with components of a cap (lid) of the food processor and a notch which provides for access to a storage cavity and where the blade storage container also includes a pillar for supporting food processor blades.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICK M MCCARTY whose telephone number is (571)272-4398. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
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.
/P.M.M./Examiner, Art Unit 1774
/CLAIRE X WANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1774