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 bayonet tabs in claim 35 must must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). 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 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.
Claim 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 (b) for being indefinite since the claim depends on itself. For purposes of compact prosecution, the claim will be interpreted as being dependent on claim 30. However, correction/clarification is required.
Claims 33, 34, and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 (b) for being indefinite since they depend on claim 32 and do not overcome the claim 32 rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112 (b).
Claim 39 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 (b) for lacking antecedent basis since “the additional unit” is not previously referred to in the claim, or any preceding claim from which claim 39 depends. Correction/clarification is required.
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 30, 31, 32, 36, 37, 38, 39, 46, 47, 48, and 49 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Marriere (US Patent 6,082,648).
Regarding claim 30, Marriere teaches a storage structure (figure 4 item 37) for a food processing device with a bowl for processing food using different accessories, the storage structure (item 37) comprising: a base unit configured to fit within the bowl (item 39 which is considered capable of being placed into the bowl), and engagement formations to retain a plurality of the accessories on the base unit for individual removal from the base unit and replacement into the base unit (corresponding recesses items 45, at least some of items 45 are considered reading engagement formations) , without first removing or replacing another of the accessories (there are multiple recesses items 45 and items 25, 26, and 27 can be each individually placed into a recess without affecting adjacent items placed into the recess).
Regarding claim 31, Marriere teaches wherein the base unit has recesses to store the accessories (there are multiple recesses items 45 which are on item 39, at least some of items 45 are considered reading on recesses to store the accessories), each of the recesses having at least one of the engagement formations to detachably engage the accessories such that the accessories are stored within the recesses to prevent direct contact of one of the accessories with another of the accessories (items 45 are used to engage items 49, 50, and 51).
Regarding claim 32, Marriere teaches wherein the food processing device has a spindle to engage the accessories for rotation within the bowl (item 19 is considered reading on a spindle), and some of the engagement formations are configured to retain the spindle (items 43 and 60 are considered reading on engagement formations that are used to retain item 19), such that the spindle is removable from the base unit without requiring removal of any of the accessories stored in the base unit (item 19 is independent of items 49, 50, and 51 and are all considered capable of being removed without affecting the adjacent accessories).
Regarding claim 36, Marriere teaches further comprising a cover for attachment to the base unit (item 14 is considered reading on a cover), the cover and the base unit defining at least one slot to retain one of the accessories formed as a disk for rotation in the bowl (space between item 14 and 39 are considered forming a slot in which items 25, 26, 27, 49, 50, and 51 are placed).
Regarding claim 37, Marriere teaches further comprising an additional unit for detachable engagement with the cover (item 30), the additional unit being configured to hold an additional accessory for the food processing device (item 17 is considered reading on an accessory), such that the additional unit does not prevent removal of any of the plurality of accessories stored in the storage structure (item 30 is spaced apart from items 25, 26, 27, 39, 49, 50, and 51).
Regarding claim 38, Marriere teaches wherein the bowl has a base with a spindle drive coupling (the bowl and spindle drive coupling are considered intended use, however Marriere teaches item 6 which has a drive coupling item 10), and the storage structure further comprises a drive coupling cavity for accommodating the spindle drive coupling when the base unit is within the bowl (opening space in the interior of item 43 that receives item 10) such that the spindle drive coupling does not touch any part of the storage structure or the plurality of accessories (items 25, 26, 27, 49, 50, and 51 are not touching items 43 or item 10).
Regarding claim 39, Marriere teaches wherein the additional unit has lift tabs for lifting the storage structure from the bowl (item 30 has rim extending down from its circumference which is considered reading on a tab, and item 30 has a rim at the center extending down which is considered reading on a second tab which can be used to lift item 30 from item 39).
Regarding claim 46, Marriere teaches wherein the food processing device has a lid for the bowl (the processing device is not considered positively claimed and therefore considered intended use of the storage structure, however, figure 4 shows a bowl item 6 and lid item 14) wherein the storage structure is configured to fit in the bowl with the lid on the bowl (item 37 can be placed in item 6 as shown in figure 5).
Regarding claim 47, Marriere teaches a storage structure (figure 4 item 37) for a food processing device with a bowl for processing food using different accessories, the storage structure (item 37) comprising: a base unit configured to fit within the bowl (item 39, the bowl is considered intended use however Marriere teaches a bowl item 6), and formations provided on the base unit to detachably retain each of the accessories (items 45 which have openings to retain items 25, 26, 27, 49, 50, and 51), the formations configured for individual detachment of each of the accessories without first detaching another of the accessories (items 25, 26, 27, 49, 50, and 51 are considered capable of being detached individually since they are each placed in a separate opening of item 45).
Regarding claim 48, Marriere teaches a storage structure (figure 4 item 37) for a food processing device with a bowl for processing food using different accessories, the storage structure (item 37) comprising: a base unit configured to fit within the bowl (item 39, the bowl is considered intended use however Marriere teaches a bowl item 6), the base unit having recesses to store the accessories (items 45 which house items 25, 26, 27, 49, 50, and 51), the recesses being configured for individual removal of each of the accessories without removal of another of the accessories (items 25, 26, 27, 49, 50, and 51 are considered capable of being detached individually since they are each placed in a separate opening of item 45).
Regarding claim 49, Marriere teaches a storage structure for a food processing device with a bowl for processing food using different accessories rotatably driven by a spindle operatively connected to a motorized base via a drive coupling within the bowl (the bowl, spindle, and motorized base are considered intended use), the storage structure comprising: a base unit configured to fit within the bowl (item 37), and the base unit (item 39) having a cavity to accommodate the drive coupling (space inside item 43 in which item 10 is received) when in the bowl such that the drive coupling is spaced from contact with any part of the base unit and the accessories retained by the base unit (items 43 and 10 are spaced apart from item 25, 26, 27, 49, 50, and 51).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 33, 34, and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marriere (US Patent 6082648A).
Claim 33 is silent to the specific sizes of the recesses in claim 33. Regarding claim 33, absent any unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the size of a recess to support either a larger or smaller accessory in order to obtain the desired degree of agitation since it is well settled that it is an obvious matter of design choice to change the general shape or size of a known element in the absence of a disclosed non-obvious advantage associated with the change. Gardner vs. TEC Systems Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 1349-50 (Fed. Cir. 1984); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 555 (CCPA 1975); In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 672 (CCPA 1966).
Regarding claim 34, Marriere teaches further comprising a removable mount in the at least one recess, the removable mount having the formations to detachably engage the accessory for storage within the recess (the lowest most portion of items 25, 26, and 27 each have a protrusion, which are considered reading on removable mounts that are placed in items 45).
Regarding claim 35, Marrier teaches the removable mount and the at least one recess have a complimentary tab and aperture forming a connection between the mount and the recess (protrusion extending downward from each of items 25, 26, and 27 are considered reading on a tab, the opening in item 45 is considered reading on an aperture). Regarding claim 35, Marrier is silent to the bayonet shape. Regarding claim 35, absent any unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the shape of the connection to improve the strength of the connection since it is well settled that it is an obvious matter of design choice to change the general shape or size of a known element in the absence of a disclosed non-obvious advantage associated with the change. Gardner vs. TEC Systems Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 1349-50 (Fed. Cir. 1984); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 555 (CCPA 1975); In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 672 (CCPA 1966).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, and 45 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. Regarding claim 40, the prior art does not teach or fairly suggest the storage structure with the combination of the base unit, engagement formations, cover, slot configuration, additional unit including a first protrusion that is slidingly releasably engageable with the channel to retain the additional unit against the cover.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANSHU BHATIA whose telephone number is (571)270-7628. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 11 a.m. to 7:30 p.m..
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.
/ANSHU BHATIA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1774
Prosecution Insights