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 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, 4 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Keller (US 1,686,280). Regarding claim 1, Keller discloses an assembly comprising a bowl (1) including at least one sidewall, the sidewall extending between an open end and an opposite end (see Figs. 1 and 5). The bowl comprises a connection feature (one or both of the ends of 1 which connect to 2, 6 and 7). The bowl is capable of receiving and holding a material that is not a required element of the claimed structure such as a food ingredient (such as margarine as explained on page 1 line 7). The bowl is capable of engaging an item that is not an element of the claimed structure in first configuration and a second configuration perpendicular thereto ("1" is freely movable to achieve any desired pair of orientations relative to an item that is not an element of the claimed structure). Regarding claim 4, the bowl is reversible along its major axis (see Figs. 1 and 5). Regarding 8, the sidewall is open at both ends (see page 1, line 23).
Claims 1, 4 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ten Brook (US 1,877,433). Regarding claim 1, Ten Brook discloses an assembly comprising a bowl (7,8,9,10) including at least one sidewall, the sidewall extending between an open end (right end in Fig. 1) and an opposite end (left end in Fig. 1). The bowl comprises a connection feature (8, 9 and/or 10). The bowl is capable of receiving and holding a material that is not a required element of the claimed structure such as a food ingredient (see Fig. 1). The bowl is capable of engaging an item that is not an element of the claimed structure in first configuration and a second configuration perpendicular to the first (for example by connecting to 8 versus 9 or, 9 versus 10 or by connecting in both configurations via 9 but rotating 90 degrees between configuration). Regarding claim 4, the bowl is reversible along its major axis (see Fig. 1). Regarding 8, there is an opening (10 or 18) on the sidewall at the second end.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 21-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over by Keller (US 1,686,280). The assembly of Keller was discussed above. A seen in Figs. 1 and 5, both ends of the bowl are threaded to retain 2, 6 and 7. In the alternative to this anticipation rejection, it is also noted on page 1, lines 65-68 it is recognized that screw threading is an alternative to other manners of attachment.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues “Keller includes no disclosure, suggestion, or motivation indicating that the container 1 could or should be used in connection with an automated micro puree machine”. However, no micro puree machine is required by the elected claims. Only a bowl is being claimed. The patentability of a bowl cannot be based upon a machine that is not part of the bowl.
Similarly, concerning Ten Brook, applicant makes argument concerning food that is not part of the claimed structure and a micro puree machine that is not part of the claimed structure, rather than pointing out any structure different between the structure of Ten Brook and the structure of the rejected claims.
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 DAVID L SORKIN whose telephone number is (571)272-1148. The examiner can normally be reached 7am-3:30pm.
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.
DAVID L. SORKIN
Examiner
Art Unit 1774
/DAVID L SORKIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1774