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 § 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 1, 2, 9, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akridge et al. (US PGPub 2021/0106508, hereinafter Akridge) in view of Kleemann et al. (US PGPub 2024/0306836, hereinafter Kleemann).
Regarding claim 1, Akridge discloses a coupling of a micro puree machine, the coupling comprising:
a coupling body (figure 3, structure 134) having an inner surface (see figure 3), the coupling body further comprising at least one ramped slot (groove 138) on the interior surface of the coupling body, the at least one ramped slot being angled relative to a lower annular surface of the coupling body (see figure 3);
wherein the at least one ramped slot forms a part of a helical bayonet mount (paragraph 0045, “bayonet locks”).
Akridge further discloses the at least one ramped slot (figure 3, groove 138) is configured to slidably engage at least one protrusion (thread 136) on a container (base 60) when the container is rotated in a first direction relative to the coupling (paragraph 0151).
Akridge is silent to a button as recited. Kleemann discloses a mount for a container on a blending device (figures 1 and 2) that includes a user-actuatable button (figure 2, button 710) on an outer surface of the coupling, the user-actuatable button configured to allow the container to rotate in a second direction opposite the first direction when the button is actuated by a user (paragraph 0105). 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 Akridge with the button of Kleemann for the purpose of maintaining the connection between the parts of the device until release of that connection is desired by the user.
Although Ackridge may not explicitly disclose a so-called “micropuree machine” or the processing of frozen food ingredients, both of these limitations are deemed to be intended use of the device. It is well-settled that the intended use of a device, especially in the preamble, does not limit the claimed invention if it does not result in a structural distinction. See MPEP 2111.02. The Applicant has not pointed out any structure that is applied to the coupling itself because of the intended use of the coupling on a micropuree machine for processing frozen food ingredients. The Examiner does not see any way in which the structure of the claimed coupling would be altered by the claimed intended use, and thus these limitations do not appear to limit the claimed invention. It is the Examiner’s position that the coupling of Akridge could would readily be useable on such a machine, and thus the claim is met.
Regarding claim 2, Akridge discloses two ramped slots on opposite sides of the inner surface of the coupling body (figure 3, two grooves 138 can be seen).
Regarding claim 9, Akridge discloses the coupling is configured to allow the container to move both axially and rotationally relative to the coupling when the container is rotated in the first direction (paragraph 0151; figure 3).
Regarding claim 10, Akridge discloses an opening of the at least one slot (figure 3, groove 138) defining a portion in contact with the lower annular surface of the coupling (opening of slot can be seen on the rim of cap 38).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akridge et al. (US PGPub 2021/0106508, hereinafter Akridge) in view of Kleemann et al. (US PGPub 2024/0306836, hereinafter Kleemann), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Audette et al. (US PGPub 2012/0027902, hereinafter Audette).
Regarding claim 3, Akridge does not explicitly disclose four ramped slots. Audette teaches another blender (abstract). The reference teaches four protrusions equally spaced (figure 7, reference #28) and four ramped slots (figure 8, reference #68).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the additional protrusions and ramped slots of Audette on the container and coupling of Akridge. 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 provide the additional protrusions and ramped slots to equal four because they provide for a more secure and stable connection, and Audette teaches that any number of engagement elements may be provided (Audette: paragraph 0064). Further, it has been held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. See In re Harza, 124 USPQ 378, 380 (CCPA 1960). In this case, additional ramped slots would have provided only the expected result of allowing for a connection between the base and the container, as evidenced by the references.
Claims 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akridge et al. (US PGPub 2021/0106508, hereinafter Akridge) in view of Kleemann et al. (US PGPub 2024/0306836, hereinafter Kleemann), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Rupp (US PGPub 2019/0323754, hereinafter Rupp).
Regarding claims 5-7, Ackridge is silent to an angled container as recited. Rupp teaches a mixing machine (figure 2) including a container (“CUP” in figure 2) wherein a container axis extending between a top and a bottom of the container extends at an angle with respect to a vertical axis of the machine when the container is in the working position, the vertical axis of the micro puree machine extending perpendicular to a bottom surface of the micro puree machine (see CUP and base portion 206 in figure 2), and further teaches an angle between 1 and 180 degrees and 45 and 55 degrees as recited (see figure 2 of Rupp). To one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to have used the provided the apparatus of Ackridge with an angled container axis, as in Rupp, for the purpose of simplifying access to the container by a user. Further, it would have been obvious to have combined the references to produce a machine having an angled container and a locking mechanism for the purpose of maintaining the close connection between the container and the machine during use to prevent spillage.
If it is decided that the container angles are not disclosed in Rupp, the Examiner has found that the specification contains no disclosure of any unexpected results arising therefrom, and that as such the parameters are arbitrary and therefore obvious. Such unsupported limitations cannot be a basis for patentability, because where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen parameters or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen parameters/variables are critical. See In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990) and MPEP 2144.05/(III).
With respect to the limitation of the container angle, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to have provided combination of Ackridge and Rupp with the angles recited in the instant claims, which are now considered at most an optimum choice, lacking any disclosed criticality.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11-14 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 11 is deemed to contain allowable subject matter because it recites a clip and specific movement of the clip in response to the actuation of the button not reasonably disclosed, taught, or suggested in the prior art of record.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/28/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues Ackridge and Kleeman are not analogous art to the claimed invention, stating that the references do not solve the same problem as the claimed invention because they apply rotating attachment/locking systems to devices other than a bowl and micro-puree machine (remarks, page 3). The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Applicant has been overly broad in their identification of the problem and has thus limited the clear understanding of one having ordinary skill in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art would immediately recognize that rotating locking systems on different parts of mixing devices seek to solve the same problem and are at least somewhat analogous, as evidence by their similar structures. The problem to be solved is attaching structures within a mixing device, and one of ordinary skill in the art would clearly recognize similarities in structure and function between various rotational locking systems, even if those systems are not used on exactly the same parts. Furthermore, the Examiner sees no reason why the device of Ackridge would not be considered a micro-puree machine as broadly recited in the claims. The instant Specification states that a micro-puree machine spins and plunges a blade in a combination of ingredients (paragraph 0004), which is exactly the function of the device of Ackridge. By the Applicant’s logic, would the attachment of a container to any mixing device not specifically stated to be a so-called “micro-puree machine” be nonanalogous to the claimed invention? Such a position would clearly be an incorrect application of the analogous art standard. For the above reasons, this argument is not persuasive and the rejections are maintained.
The Applicant argues that one of ordinary skill in the art would not incorporate the release button of Kleeman on the device of Ackridge because Ackridge does not include a locking mechanism, and thus does not need to be unlocked (remarks, page 3). The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The presence of an unlocking mechanism is inherently tied to a locking mechanism. Obviously, the combination proposed above would include a locking mechanism (such as that of Kleeman) to be unlocked by the button of Kleeman. The Examiner’s position is that this type of locking/unlocking mechanism is well-known in the art and it would have been obvious to have applied such a mechanism to the device of Ackridge to arrive at the claimed invention. Thus, this argument is not persuasive.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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 on 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