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 base housing as set forth in claims 1, 6, 13 and 15 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). To extent the “base housing” is meant to refer to “housing 170”, consistent nomenclature should be used. 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.
Claim Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 2, “includes each of an upper stiff plate” should read --includes an upper stiff plate--. 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 9, 12 and 20 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 9 recites the limitation, “an upper stiff plate” in lines 1-2. It is unclear whether “an upper stiff plate” is the same or different as, or in addition to, “at least one stiff plate” as recited in claim 6, upon which claim 9 depends. 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.
Regarding claim 12, figure 2 and the specification in paragraph [0037] states that the motorized base 200 includes the sealing sub-assembly 280. Therefore, it is unclear how the sealing-sub assembly can be “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” since the sealing sub-assembly is a part of the motorized base and therefore cannot be positioned with respect to itself. As such the claim is indefinite for failing to distinctly claim the invention.
Regarding claim 20, figure 2 and the specification in paragraph [0037] states that the motorized base 200 includes the sealing sub-assembly 280. Therefore, it is unclear how the sealing-sub assembly can be “positioned adjacent to and abutting the motorized base for providing a gap between the motorized base and the blending container” since the sealing sub-assembly is a part of the motorized base and therefore cannot be positioned or provide a gap with respect to itself. As such the claim is indefinite for failing to distinctly claim the invention.
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.
(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) 1, 3, 4, 6-7, 9-10, 12-14 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 aa blender system (abstract) comprising:
a motor (motor 122) mounted on a motor mount (motor housing 120);
a base housing isolated from the motor mount (shell 130, see figures 1-2, shell 130 (housing) isolated from motor housing 120 (motor mount) by gaskets 108 and 140; [0029]; [0033]; [0037]); and
a blending container in which contents to be blended are container (figure 4, container 420; [0027]), wherein the base housing is coupled to the blending container ([0027]).
Regarding claim 3, Kozlowski discloses further comprising an inlet cover and an outlet cover configured such that there is a torturous airflow path between the motor and an outside of the blender system (see figures 1-2, fan chamber 116 and base frame 112 with walls and passages throughout blender base 100; [0024] base frame includes vents and baffles and fan chamber draw air through blender base to cool blender base and components thereof).
Regarding claim 4, Kozlowski discloses further comprising a top stiff plate (motor plate 124) and one or more top isolators (gasket 140; [0031]).
Regarding claim 6, Kozlowski discloses a blender system (abstract), the blender system comprising:
a motorized base (blender base 100) including a motor within the motorized base (motor 122), the motor being mounted on a motor mount (motor housing 120);
at least one stiff plate located within the motorized base (figure 1, motor plate #124 or base frame #112); and
at least one elastic isolator coupled to the at least one stiff plate (figure 1, gasket #108 or 140; [0029]; [0033]; [0037]); and
a base housing isolated from the motor mount (shell 130, see figures 1-2, shell 130 (housing) isolated from motor housing 120 (motor mount) by gaskets 108 and 140; [0029]; [0033]; [0037]).
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 an upper stiff plate (figure 1, motor plate #124), and wherein the at least one elastic isolator is coupled at a first end to the upper stiff plate (figure 1, gasket #140; [0029]).
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, pedestal #128; [0027]).
Regarding claim 13, Kozlowski discloses wherein the base housing surrounds the motor to further reduce noise emitted by the motor (figure 1, shell #130 surrounds motor 122).
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 #112, 116, 120, 132).
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-7, 9-18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kolar et al. (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2022/0240724).
Regarding claim 1, Kolar et al. discloses a blender system (abstract) comprising:
a motor (motor 1110) mounted on a motor mount (motor casting 1112; [0102]);
a base housing isolated from the motor mount (housing 1150; [0104]); and
a blending container in which contents to be blended are contained, wherein the base housing is coupled to the blending container (figure 18, blending container 1820; [0101]; [0123]).
Regarding claim 2, Kolar et al. discloses further comprising a fan decoupled from the motor (fan 1130; [0105]-[0107]).
Regarding claim 3, Kolar et al. discloses further comprising an inlet cover and an outlet cover configured such that there is a tortuous airflow patch between the motor and an outside of the blender system (air intakes 1310/1312, internal exhaust 1316, channel 1314; [0113]-[0120]).
Regarding claim 4, Kolar et al. discloses a top stiff plate (mounting bracket 1114) and one or more isolators (suspension bracket 1117; [0104]).
Regarding claim 6, Kolar et al. discloses a blender system (abstract), the blender system comprising:
a motorized base (blender base 1102) including a motor within the motorized base (motor 1110), the motor being mounted on a motor mount (motor casting 1112; [0102]);
at least one stiff plate located within the motorized base (mounting bracket 1114);
at least one elastic isolator coupled to the at least one stiff plate (suspension bracket 1117; [0104]); and
a base housing isolated from the motor mount (housing 1150; [0104]).
Regarding claim 7, Kolar et al. discloses further including a mixing assembly coupled to the motorized base in which contents are to be blended may be contained (figure 18, blending container 1820 and blade assembly 1830; [0101]; [0123]).
Regarding claim 9, Kolar et al. discloses wherein the blender system includes an upper stiff plate (mounting bracket 1114), and wherein the at least one elastic isolator is coupled to a first end of the upper stiff plate (figure 12, suspension bracket 1117 coupled to first end of mounting bracket 1114; [0104]).
Regarding claim 10, Kolar et al. discloses wherein the motorized base further includes acoustic foam adjacent to the motor (figure 12, insulating material 1190; [0095]-[0101].
Regarding claim 11, Kolar et al. discloses wherein the motorized base includes a fan decoupled from the motor for cooling the motor (fan 1130; [0105]-[0107]).
Regarding claim 12, Kolar et al. 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, pedestal 1152; [0101]).
Regarding claim 13, Kolar et al. discloses wherein the base housing surrounds the motor to further reduce noise emitted by the motor (figures 11 and 12, housing 1150 surrounds motor 1110).
Regarding claim 14, Kolar et al. discloses further comprising a shroud surrounding the motor that includes a tortuous internal path (insulating material 1190; channel 1314; [0113]-[0120]).
Regarding claim 15, Kolar et al. discloses a blender system (abstract), the blender system comprising:
a motorized base (blender base 1102) including a motor within the motorized base (motor 1110), the motor being mounted on a motor mount (motor casting 1112; [0102]);
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 (suspension bracket 1117; [0104]); and
a base housing isolated from the motor mount (housing 1150; [0104]); and
a fan decoupled from the motor (fan 1130; [0105]-[0107]).
Regarding claim 16, Kolar et al. discloses the motorized base further including at least one stiff plate contained therein for reducing transmission of vibrations within the motorized base (mounting bracket 1114; [0103]-[0104]).
Regarding claim 17, Kolar et al. discloses further including a mixing assembly coupled to the motorized base in which contents to be blended may be contained (figure 18, blending container 1820 and blade assembly 1830; [0101]; [0123]).
Regarding claim 18, Kolar et al. discloses wherein the blender system includes a blending container that can be coupled to the motorized base (figure 18, blending container 1820; [0101]; [0123]).
Regarding claim 20, Kolar et al. 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 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, pedestal 1152; [0101]).
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 and 8 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 and 8, 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) 5, 8 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kolar et al. in view of Dickson et al.
Regarding claims 5, 8 and 20, Kolar et al. 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 Kolar. 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) 2, 11, 15-18 and 20 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 claims 2 and 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]).
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, blender base #100 and motor 122), the motor being mounted on a motor mount (motor housing 120); 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, gaskets #108 and 140; [0031]; [0033]; [0035]);
a base housing isolated from the motor mount (shell 130, see figures 1-2, shell 130 (housing) isolated from motor housing 120 (motor mount) by gaskets 108 and 140; [0029]; [0033]; [0037]).
While the Kozlowski discloses a fan (figure 1, reference #118), the fan is not decoupled from the motor.
Williams teaches another blender (abstract). Williams teaches 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]).
Regarding claim 16, Kozlowski in view of Williams discloses all the limitations as set forth above. Kozlowski as modified by Williams further 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 in view of Williams discloses all the limitations as set forth above. Kozlowski as modified by Williams further 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 in view of Williams discloses all the limitations as set forth above. Kozlowski as modified by Williams further 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 in view of Williams discloses all the limitations as set forth above. Kozlowski as modified by Williams further 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(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kozlowski in view of Williams as applied to claims 15, 17 and 18 above, and further in view of Dickson et al.
Regarding claim 19, Kozlowski in view of Williams discloses all the limitations as set forth above. However, Kozlowski as modified by Williams does not explicitly disclose a sound cover.
Dickson et al. teaches another blender (abstract). Dickson et al. 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).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/8/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues Kozlowski fails to teach the motor mount is isolated from the base housing because paragraph [0026] of Kozlowski discloses that the motor housing 120 may be rigidly attached to a motor plate 124. Examiner finds this argument unpersuasive. Motor housing 120 is the motor mount, not the base housing. The base housing is shell 130. As explained in the claim rejections, the shell 130, see figures 1-2, shell 130 (housing) is isolated from motor housing 120 (motor mount) by gaskets 108 and 140; [0029]; [0033]; [0037]). Applicant further states in Remarks, page 11, “Kozlowski fails to teach anything related to differing inlet pressures causing different flow paths to be open or closed.” There is nothing in the claims that mentions inlet pressures or open or closing flow paths, so Examiner is confused as to why this argument is being presented.
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