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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/23/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 6-13 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 6 recites “the open end includes a neck disposed between the open end and the closed end.” It is not clear how the neck is part of the open end but is also disposed between the open end and the closed end. It appears that claim 6 is meant to recite “the body includes a neck disposed between the open end and the closed end,” but this must be clarified.
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected because they depend from indefinite claim 6.
Claim 9 recites “the body further comprises at least two generally symmetrical sides, and at least one non-symmetrical side.” It is not clear what is meant by this limitation. The limitation could mean that the sides themselves are symmetrical or that pairs of sides are symmetrical to each other. In figure 26, each of the four sides that can be seen are symmetrical on their own, so it is not clear which would be the asymmetrical side. It appears that claim 9 is intended to be interpreted as the body including a pair of opposed matching sides (at the top and bottom of figure 26) and a pair of opposed sides that do not match (on the left and right of figure 26). The claim needs to be clarified as to what is meant by the term symmetrical as it applies to individual sides or pairs of sides.
Claims 10-13 are rejected because they depend from indefinite claim 9.
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.
Claims 1-5 and 19-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Boozer et al. (US PGPub 2018/0168403, hereinafter Boozer).
Regarding claim 1, Boozer discloses a blending container, comprising:
a body (figure 4, wall 426) forming a cavity (within wall 426), the body comprising;
a closed end (bottom 430) comprising a blade assembly (blade assembly 440), wherein the closed end is configured to operatively couple to a motor base (figure 1, base 160); and
an open end (end 422) opposite the closed end, and comprising a perimeter edge defining an opening (see figure 4), wherein at least a portion of the perimeter edge is configured to operatively receive a serving lid or a serving cup (lid 410) when the closed end is operatively coupled to the motor base. It is noted that the serving lid or serving cup are not positively recited, and that the only requirement is that the perimeter edge be configured to (i.e. capable of) receiving such a lid. The container of Boozer would be fully capable of receiving a broadly-recited serving lid or serving cup. Regardless, the lid of Boozer is considered to meet the broad recitation of a “serving lid” because it includes aperture 412 through which material could be served from the container.
Regarding claim 2, Boozer discloses the perimeter edge of the open end further comprises a lip (figure 4, seen near reference items 416 and 422) configured to operatively mate with the serving lid or serving cup (see figure 4).
Regarding claim 3, Boozer discloses the lip is configured to operatively form a snap-fit or friction fit with the serving lid or serving cup (paragraph 0072, “The lid 410 may be attachable via a friction fit”).
Regarding claim 4, Boozer discloses the lip (figure 4, seen near reference items 416 and 422) extends annularly from the opening for a predetermined width (see figure 4), and wherein the lip is configured to operatively receive a rim of the serving lid or serving cup (lid 410) when the serving cup is inverted (see figure 4).
Regarding claim 5, Boozer discloses the lip (figure 4, seen near reference items 416 and 422) further includes a terminal end extending generally coaxially with the body (see figure 4).
Regarding claim 19, Boozer discloses blending system, comprising:
a motor base (figure 1, base 160),
a container comprising a body (figure 4, wall 426) forming a cavity and configured to operatively couple to the motor base (see figure 1) at a closed end (bottom 430) of the container, the closed end comprising a blade assembly (blade assembly 440), wherein the container comprises an open end (end 422) opposite the closed end and is configured to receive foodstuff into the cavity; and
a serving cup or serving lid (lid 410) configured to operatively couple with the open end of the container (see figure 4);
wherein the open end of the container is configured to be partially or fully covered by the serving lid or the serving cup during blending of the foodstuff (see figure 4). The lid of Boozer is considered to meet the broad recitation of a “serving lid” because it includes aperture 412 through which material could be served from the container.
Regarding claim 20, Boozer discloses a method for using a blending system and serving blended foodstuff, the method comprising:
inserting foodstuff into a blending container (paragraph 0005) through an open end (figure 4, end 422) of the blending container;
covering at least a portion of the open end of the blending container with a serving cup or an enclosure (lid 410 is considered to be the broadly-recited enclosure);
actuating the blending system and blending the foodstuff (paragraph 0004); and
transferring the blended foodstuff from the blending container into the serving cup (via spout 202).
It is noted that claims 21 and 22 relate to the serving cup being used to block the open end of the blending container, which is an optional limitation in claim 20. Because Boozer meets claim 20 with the option of an enclosure, claims 21 and 22 are also met. Amending claims 21 and 22 to recite “The method of claim 20, wherein the portion of the open end of the blending container is covered by the serving cup…” would overcome this rejection.
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.
Claims 6, 7, and 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boozer et al. (US PGPub 2018/0168403, hereinafter Boozer) in view of Bravard et al. (US PGPub 2005/0122837, hereinafter Bravard).
Regarding claim 6, Boozer is silent to a neck as recited. Bravard teaches a blending container (figure 2, jar 10) having an open end (end 16) and a closed end (end 14) wherein the open end includes a neck (portion 38) disposed between the open end and the closed end. To one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to have provided the apparatus of Boozer with the neck of Bravard for the purpose of enhancing performance of the blender (Bravard: paragraph 0018).
Regarding claim 7, Boozer is silent to a neck as recited. Bravard is relied upon, as above, to teach a neck, and further to teach the body tapers inwardly towards the neck from the closed end (see figure 2). Although the taper does not extend from the farthest part of the closed end to the neck, the claim is sufficiently broad as to be met by the disclosure of Bravard. To one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to have provided the apparatus of Boozer with the neck of Bravard for the purpose of enhancing performance of the blender (Bravard: paragraph 0018).
Regarding claim 14, Boozer discloses a blending container, comprising:
a body (figure 4, wall 426) forming a cavity, and comprising a bottom wall (bottom 430) defining a closed end, an open end (end 422) defining an opening, and at least one side wall (wall 426) extending from the closed end to the open end;
wherein the bottom wall is couplable to a blade assembly (blade assembly 440) and configured to operatively couple to a motor base (figure 1, base 160); and
wherein the open end includes a surface (seen near end 422) for receiving at least one of a serving cup lid or an inverted serving cup (lid 410). It is noted that the serving lid or serving cup are not positively recited, and that the only requirement is that the perimeter edge be for (i.e. capable of) receiving such a lid. The container of Boozer would be fully capable of receiving a broadly-recited serving lid or serving cup. Regardless, the lid of Boozer is considered to meet the broad recitation of a “serving lid” because it includes aperture 412 through which material could be served from the container.
Boozer is silent to a perimeter of the bottom wall is larger than a portion of the body between the open end and the closed end. Bravard teaches a blending container (figure 2, jar 10) having an open end (end 16) and a closed end (end 14) wherein a perimeter of the bottom wall (at end 14) is larger than a portion of the body (at portion 38) between the open end and the closed end. To one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to have provided the apparatus of Boozer with the portion of Bravard for the purpose of enhancing performance of the blender (Bravard: paragraph 0018).
Regarding claim 15, Boozer discloses the blending container does not include a lid (see figure 15). As can be seen in the figure, the lid 410 is separate from the container 420, and thus the container is considered to not include a lid. Further, the lid 410 of Boozer is interpreted as a serving cup lid, which is defined by the Applicant as distinct from a lid as recited in claim 15.
Regarding claim 16, Boozer discloses the open end of the blending container further comprises a lip (figure 4, seen near reference items 416 and 422) configured to operatively mate at least one of the serving cup lid or the inverted serving cup (see figure 4), wherein the lip extends annularly from the opening for a predetermined width (see figure 4).
Regarding claim 17, Boozer disclose the blending container is configured to insert into an enclosure and carry out a blending operation without the serving cup lid or the inverted serving cup. It is noted that the enclosure itself is not positively recited, merely that the container be configured to (i.e. capable of) being inserted into an enclosure. The container of Boozer would be fully capable of being inserted into an enclosure as recited, meeting the claim.
Regarding claim 18, Boozer discloses the surface of the open end (figure 4, end 422) is configured to operatively receive varying sizes of serving lids or inverted serving cups. The surface of the open end of the container of Boozer would be fully capable of receiving various sizes of lids, meeting the claim.
Claims 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boozer et al. (US PGPub 2018/0168403, hereinafter Boozer) in view of Conti (USPGPub 2013/0077433, hereinafter Conti).
Regarding claim 9, Boozer is silent to the sides as recited. Conti teaches a blending container having at least two generally symmetrical sides, and at least one non-symmetrical side (see figure 3). As can be seen in the figure, the sides are separated by ribs 44-47 and include two sides (upper and lower in figure 3) that are symmetrical with respect to each other and two sides (left and right in figure 3) that are not. To one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to have provided the container of Boozer with the sides of Conti because such a change in shape would have provided only the predictable result of allowing for material to be mixed within the container, as evidenced by the references.
Regarding claim 10, Boozer is silent to the sides as recited. Conti is relied upon, as above, to teach sides and further to teach the at least two generally symmetrical sides and the at least one non-symmetrical side are bound by one or more ribs (figure 3, ribs 44-47) extending from the closed end to the open end (see figure 4). To one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to have provided the container of Boozer with the sides of Conti because such a change in shape would have provided only the predictable result of allowing for material to be mixed within the container, as evidenced by the references.
Regarding claim 11, Boozer discloses a handle, but it silent to the sides. Conti is relied upon, as above, to teach the sides, and further to teach a handle (figure 4, handle 40) extending from the at least one non-symmetrical side (see figures 3 and 4). To one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to have provided the container of Boozer with the sides of Conti because such a change in shape would have provided only the predictable result of allowing for material to be mixed within the container, as evidenced by the references.
Regarding claim 12, Boozer is silent to the sides as recited. Conti is relied upon, as above, to teach sides and further to teach at least one non-symmetrical side being generally planar (figure 3, at least a portion of the non-symmetrical side on the left is generally planar). To one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to have provided the container of Boozer with the sides of Conti because such a change in shape would have provided only the predictable result of allowing for material to be mixed within the container, as evidenced by the references.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8 and 13 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 8 is deemed to contain allowable subject matter because it recites an outer surface of the neck being configured to operatively engage with the serving lid or serving cup.
Claim 13 is deemed to contain allowable subject matter because it recites a configuration of the sides not reasonably disclosed, taught, or suggested in the prior art of record.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The cited prior art generally discloses blending containers.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARC C HOWELL whose telephone number is (571)272-9834. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-5.
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.
/MARC C HOWELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1774
Prosecution Insights