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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the one or more isolators coupled to the bottom/lower stiff plate as set forth in claims 1 and 9 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). The bottom stiff plate is described as being reference #246; however, it is only shown in figure 6 and there is no top or bottom isolator coupled to it. No new matter should be entered.
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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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: the specification misidentifies reference numbers throughout.
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 1-5 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 1 recites the limitation, “one or more top isolators coupled to the bottom stiff plate to form a second self-supporting structure” in lines 7-8. It is unclear whether “one or more top isolators” is the same or different as “one or more top isolators” as recited in line 4 of the claim. As such the claim is indefinite for failing to distinctly claim the invention. Claims 2-5 are also rejected under 35 USC 112(b) by virtue of their dependency on claim 1. It appears the limitation is meant to recite “one or more bottom isolators” and examiner will use that interpretation for purposes of compact prosecution.
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) 1-4, 6-7, 9-10, 12-18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kozlowski (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2018/0117552).
Regarding claim 1, Kozlowski discloses a sound-reducing system for reducing noise emitted by a motor in a blender (abstract), the sound-reducing system including:
a top stiff plate (reference #124);
one or more top isolators coupled to the top stiff plate to form a first self-supporting structure (reference #140);
a bottom stiff plate (reference #112); and
one or more top isolators coupled to the bottom stiff plate to form a second self-supporting structure (reference #108).
Regarding claim 2, Kozlowski discloses wherein the sound-reducing system is located within a base of the blender (figure 1, reference #100).
Regarding claim 3, Kozlowski discloses wherein the base is coupled to a blending container in which contents to be blended are contained (figure 4, reference #420; [0027]).
Regarding claim 4, Kozlowski discloses further comprising foam abutting at least one of the top stiff plate, the one or more top isolators, the bottom stiff plate, and the one or more bottom isolators ([0031]).
Regarding claim 6, Kozlowski discloses a blender system (abstract), the blender system comprising:
a motorized base including a motor within the motorized base (figure 1, reference #100 and 122);
at least one stiff plate located within the motorized base (figure 1, reference #124 or reference #112); and
at least one elastic isolator coupled to the stiff plate (figure 1, reference #108 or 140).
Regarding claim 7, Kozlowski discloses further including a mixing assembly coupled to the motorized base in which contents to be blended may be contained (figure 4, reference #420 and 430; [0027]).
Regarding claim 9, Kozlowski discloses wherein the blender system includes each of an upper stiff plate (figure 1, reference #124 or reference #120) and a lower stiff plate (figure 1, reference #132 or reference #112), and wherein the at least one elastic isolator is coupled at a first end to the upper stiff plate and at a second end to the lower stiff plate (figure 1, reference #140 or reference #108; [0029] or [0035]).
Regarding claim 10, Kozlowski discloses wherein the motorized base further includes acoustic foam adjacent to the motor ([0031]).
Regarding claim 12, Kozlowski discloses further comprising a sealing sub-assembly positioned and located between the motorized base and the mixing assembly such that the sealing sub-assembly physically abuts each of the motorized base and the mixing assembly (figure 1, reference #128; [0027]).
Regarding claim 13, Kozlowski discloses wherein the blender system includes a housing surrounding the motor to further reduce noise emitted by the motor (figure 1, reference #130).
Regarding claim 14, Kozlowski discloses further comprising a shroud surrounding the motor that includes a tortuous internal path (figure 1, internal walls through ought reference #100, including reference #116, 120, 132).
Regarding claim 15, Kozlowski discloses a blender system (abstract), the blender system comprising:
a motorized base including a motor within the motorized base (figure 1, reference #100 and 122); and
at least one isolator within the motorized base coupled to one or more components within the motorized base, the at least one isolator being elastic for reducing transmission of vibrations within the motorized base (figure 1, reference #108 and 140; [0031]; [0033]; [0035]).
Regarding claim 16, Kozlowski discloses the motorized base further including at least one stiff plate contained therein for reducing transmission of vibrations within the motorized base (figure 1, reference #112 or 124; [0029]; [0036])).
Regarding claim 17, Kozlowski discloses further including a mixing assembly coupled to the motorized base in which contents to be blended may be contained (figure 4, reference #420 and 430; [0027]).
Regarding claim 18, Kozlowski discloses wherein the blender system includes a blending container that can be coupled to the motorized base (figure 4, reference #420; [0027]).
Regarding claim 20, Kozlowski discloses further comprising a sealing sub-assembly positioned adjacent to and abutting the motorized base for providing a gap between the motorized base and the blending container (figure 1, reference #128; [0027]).
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) 5, 8 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kozlowski in view of Dickson et al. (U.S. Patent No. 5,957,577).
Regarding claims 5, 8, and 19, Kozlowski discloses all the limitations as set forth above. However, the reference does not explicitly disclose a sound cover.
Dickson et al. teaches another blender (abstract). The reference teaches a sound cover surrounding the blending container (figure 1, reference #20 24, 26).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the sound cover of Dickson et al. surrounding the blending container of Kozlowski. One of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect such a combination to be suitable given that both references teach blenders. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do the foregoing because it reduces noise generated when the processing device is activated (Dickson et al. column 3, lines 21-24).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kozlowski in view of Williams (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2018/0014696).
Regarding claim 11, Kozlowski discloses all the limitations as set forth above. While the reference discloses a fan (figure 1, reference #118), the fan is not decoupled from the motor.
Williams teaches another blender (abstract). The reference teaches a wherein the motorized base includes a fan decoupled from the motor for cooling the motor (reference #28; [0022]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the fan of Kozlowski to be decoupled from the motor as taught by Williams. One of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect such a combination to be suitable given that both references teach blenders. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do the foregoing because it allows the cooling fan to operate while the motor is not running or operate at a different rotational speed than the motor to better adjust for the temperature of the motor and the housing (Williams [0022]-[0023]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kolar et al. (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 20220240724) discloses an isolator (reference #1117; [0104]) and plate (reference #114). Boozer (U.S. Patent No. 9,084,512) discloses bottom isolator (reference #56), top isolator (reference #74), top stiff plate (reference #48), bottom stiff plate (top wall reference #12).
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